You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I know it's been beat to death, but I find it troubling with the amount on the spoil vs the amount spread, and different people claiming the sand is there, and the the sand wasn't that far up the beach.....sounds like a Blevins theory changing all the time 

I find it difficult to believe Palmer and the FBI guys had the money location wrong, relative to the dredge pile photos, whereas Kaye has it right. But Kaye has seen clear FBI photos of the site nobody else has seen. Something doesn't add up -

It's not the location being wrong. it's how they conclude the spreading of the material. if we believe the sand wasn't applied where the money was found. how can Palmer identify the layer?

If Kaye is correct the FBI and Palmer dug at the wrong site! Or, Palmer dug at the right site but misinterpreted the layers. In any event (also according to Kaye) the money find site and the dredge spoils site are not the same and 150-200 yard distant from each other, so according to Kaye there could not have been any association between the two.

Spreading is another issue - Kaye addresses that by saying the money find location was 150-200 yards from the dredging spoils site (before or after the spreading I am not sure what Kaye means, because he doesn't explain himself.)


 

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

The strata are as stable as a rock and well researched. What there is however is "cross beddding" which is the shifting and reworking of surface sands through successive water events. 

The "cross bedding" indicates the bar's sand is anything but stable.  When sandy soil becomes saturated with water, it becomes fluid like and behaves much differently than dry sandy soil:

what has this got to do with Tina Bar and the Cooper money find ...?

It's just a demonstration of how water saturated sand behaves differently than dry sand.  If the bar's sand is saturated by flooding, tides,  rainfall, high water table, etc., is it possible for certain layers to co-mingle and objects of varying density to ascend or descend through those layers?

My opinion is, and its just my opinion, 'yes' but not to the degree you think. You speakof the sand being saturated by water ... well we have posted the 'watering' periods many times. (water levels). Go back and review those periods. What periods of 'saturation' are you referring to - when? What is the source of the ground vibration?

The bar's sand would be water saturated every time there is a decent rainfall.  Vibrations could occur with wave action from boat wakes, engine vibration from passing freighters or heavy ground moving equipment nearby.  I'm not comfortable with the idea the money changed layers, but as active as the soil is in that area, I can't discount that it could have happened.

Quote

Palmer dug at the right site but misinterpreted the layers

I lean more in this direction. I have a lot of respect for Palmer, but find the conclusions questionable. I find it hard to believe the dredge layer would still be there with the dangerous levels of erosion on that beach. then you look at the report with actual samples from the dredge material and they don't jive. the distance of the spreading is also questionable, and hard to swallow given the amount they had.

If you look at the beach today on Google, they have put rocks at the waterline to try and slow the erosion.

Without more facts its hard to lean in any direction and call that "the truth of the matter". If Kaye is right and the money was "not" within the FBI's circles on the USGS photos, but further north as Kaye says, then there were no dredging layers for Palmer to find and label! The news photos from the time show them digging very close to Kaye's location? If that is true then Kaye is wrong and they were digging at the money find site. But that is north of the dredge pile. Then the problem is the FBI circles on the USGS photos. And, all of this discounts the spreading aspect
because if the spreading was done to specs as per the contractor's specifications then no dredging debris was at the money site for Palmer to find! It's a complex problem. 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote

Palmer dug at the right site but misinterpreted the layers

I lean more in this direction. I have a lot of respect for Palmer, but find the conclusions questionable. I find it hard to believe the dredge layer would still be there with the dangerous levels of erosion on that beach. then you look at the report with actual samples from the dredge material and they don't jive. the distance of the spreading is also questionable, and hard to swallow given the amount they had.

If you look at the beach today on Google, they have put rocks at the waterline to try and slow the erosion.

This pretty much sums up how I feel on the subject also.  I have not seen a better theory to sway me away from this, but I can't discount the possibility that something else could have happened here.

I think almost everyone agrees the money was found in or just below the upper active layer. Kaye doesn't even dispute that. The only question is if the money had eroded out or was a recent arrival. One FBI lab report that examined sand types between the bills favored 'recent arrival', but since no actual sand or soil chemistry was run, no clarifying data exists to nail down one theory over another -

My guess is Palmer would have said soil chemistry would prove there was no association between dredging spoils and the soils found between the bills. The chemistry of bottom dredging spoils vs. upper active washed sand is different. It is worth noting that Kaye would be forced to say that soil chemistry of the layer Palmer identified as 'dredging spoils' was not bottom dredging material at all. Bottom dredged spoils has a unique chemistry I am told. In fact a USGS chemist told me that there is variation in the chemistry of bottom dredging spoils as you move from one location to another along the Columbia and some areas have very unique bottom spoils chemistries! I made note of this years ago at Dropzone after I had talked to a USGS chemist. Kaye didn't seem interested at all. 

Bottom dredging spoil chemistry changes as you move along the Columbia - that is just fact. Those spoils are routinely tested for radiation and other products because of the nuclear station up stream.

I've seen a lot of sloppy work done by the FBI, not only on this case, but others. they misplace things, lose evidence. they take years to actually turn a case over to the Marshal's. they also bury files, important ones! how can they possibly solve these old cases?

Flight Data Recorder data....Um, we had it?
Butts.....around here somewhere?
Cups......somewhere around here?
Hair samples.....we gave the seat back 
Radar tapes....I don't think we ever had them?
Records of the pressure bump.....8:10-8:11? seriously?
We were over the Woodland area?
We were east of V-23?
8:52 last contact with hijacker was about 55 minutes? 7:57?
Pictures of the money, the chutes?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote

Palmer dug at the right site but misinterpreted the layers

I lean more in this direction. I have a lot of respect for Palmer, but find the conclusions questionable. I find it hard to believe the dredge layer would still be there with the dangerous levels of erosion on that beach. then you look at the report with actual samples from the dredge material and they don't jive. the distance of the spreading is also questionable, and hard to swallow given the amount they had.

If you look at the beach today on Google, they have put rocks at the waterline to try and slow the erosion.

Without more facts its hard to lean in any direction and call that "the truth of the matter". If Kaye is right and the money was "not" within the FBI's circles on the USGS photos, but further north as Kaye says, then there were no dredging layers for Palmer to find and label! The news photos from the time show them digging very close to Kaye's location? If that is true then Kaye is wrong and they were digging at the money find site. But that is north of the dredge pile. Then the problem is the FBI circles on the USGS photos. And, all of this discounts the spreading aspect
because if the spreading was done to specs as per the contractor's specifications then no dredging debris was at the money site for Palmer to find! It's a complex problem. 

I'm not sure I'm following this....But, does it seem very likely Palmer was not digging at the money find site?  Once the money was reported, the Ingrams would have visited the site while their memories were fresh.  The FBI would have flagged it and the digging would have been done at the flag.  If Kaye is suggesting a different spot thirty-some years later, that doesn't seem likely to me.  Possible?  Sure.  Likely?  No.

Georger you've posted some questions about how we can't really be 100% sure.  But, what is your take?

I honestly don't know, Mark. Maybe Shutter can refresh our memory here but I thought we decided the new photos show digging very close to the site Kaye says was the money find site? Those photos show where Palmer would have been ? Does Shutter agree with this?

Kaye's other point is the FBI circles on the USGS photos do not reflect the actual money site which Kaye says was further north of the dredge pile. So, do the news photos agree with Kaye's location or the FBI circles?



 

Kaye's other point is the FBI circles on the USGS photos do not reflect the actual money site which Kaye says was further north of the dredge pile. So, do the news photos agree with Kaye's location or the FBI circles?

Georger,  About 2009/2010, you and I spent about an entire year looking over maps and photographs of the Tina Bar area.  We paid a lot of attention to the small "piers" (I don't remember their exact name) that extend into the river itself and have reflectors on them to assist ships moving up and down the river.  We discussed the piers that are located on both the Oregon (west) side of the river and the Washington (east) side of the river.  And we noticed that some of the piers on the Oregon side of the river could be identified in the photographs of the agents digging at the time the money was found.

I am not claiming to speak for Tom Kaye, but recently he told me that when he, Larry Carr, Brian Ingram, and others were at Tina Bar a few years ago, that Brian could not identify the exact spot where he found the money.  Brian had not been at Tina Bar for quite a few years prior to the most recent visit, the erosion had been severe, and Brian could not identify any specific trees or other landmarks that he had used previously to pinpoint the money find location.

So Tom Kaye used photographs of the Tina Bar area, including those of the agents digging, to identify the position that he gives on his web page.  The GPS coordinates he gives, as I remember it, are estimates rather than actual point measurements.  The GPS point that Tom gives is slightly SOUTH of the NORTHERN edge of the Fazio's containment pit.  And based on your and  my looking at the charts and pictures a few years back, I think Tom Kaye gives the position of the agents digging about as accurately as it can be given today.

The FBI circles do seem to be a bit SOUTH of Tom's location.  Nevertheless, those circles are still NORTH of the SOUTHERN edge of the Fazio's containment pit.  And there is not a world of difference between the two locations.  They are just a short distance apart and both are on the WEST side of the Fazio containment pit.

Maybe Meyer Louie can correct me on this, but as I remember it during our visit to Tina Bar in July 2013, the Tina Bar regular we talked to, "Jon", more or less indicated that Tom's location was the proper one.



 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Kaye's other point is the FBI circles on the USGS photos do not reflect the actual money site which Kaye says was further north of the dredge pile. So, do the news photos agree with Kaye's location or the FBI circles?

Georger,  About 2009/2010, you and I spent about an entire year looking over maps and photographs of the Tina Bar area.  We paid a lot of attention to the small "piers" (I don't remember their exact name) that extend into the river itself and have reflectors on them to assist ships moving up and down the river.  We discussed the piers that are located on both the Oregon (west) side of the river and the Washington (east) side of the river.  And we noticed that some of the piers on the Oregon side of the river could be identified in the photographs of the agents digging at the time the money was found.

I am not claiming to speak for Tom Kaye, but recently he told me that when he, Larry Carr, Brian Ingram, and others were at Tina Bar a few years ago, that Brian could not identify the exact spot where he found the money.  Brian had not been at Tina Bar for quite a few years prior to the most recent visit, the erosion had been severe, and Brian could not identify any specific trees or other landmarks that he had used previously to pinpoint the money find location.

So Tom Kaye used photographs of the Tina Bar area, including those of the agents digging, to identify the position that he gives on his web page.  The GPS coordinates he gives, as I remember it, are estimates rather than actual point measurements.  The GPS point that Tom gives is slightly SOUTH of the NORTHERN edge of the Fazio's containment pit.  And based on your and  my looking at the charts and pictures a few years back, I think Tom Kaye gives the position of the agents digging about as accurately as it can be given today.

The FBI circles do seem to be a bit SOUTH of Tom's location.  Nevertheless, those circles are still NORTH of the SOUTHERN edge of the Fazio's containment pit.  And there is not a world of difference between the two locations.  They are just a short distance apart and both are on the WEST side of the Fazio containment pit.

Maybe Meyer Louie can correct me on this, but as I remember it during our visit to Tina Bar in July 2013, the Tina Bar regular we talked to, "Jon", more or less indicated that Tom's location was the proper one.

I think I can basically accept all of this .... which now puts the Palmer dig site and Kaye's estimated location as close to each other?

Lets say this is true. Except for the issue of spreading, that places the dredge pile far enough away as Tom says, that if Palmer dug at Tom's location, Palmer could not have found any dredging spoil layer there ? Remember, Tom says Palmer 'mis-identified' the layer, not that it wasnt there at all. If Tom is correct and spreading is not a factor, then there was no dredging spoil layer present at the money site for Palmer to find in any event  ?