Georger wrote:


Tom and others focus on the 'clay lump and sand' layer Palmer identified as being the dredge spoils from 1974. Above that layer, Palmer identifies a "cross bedded sand" layer which in the Palmer analysis may be the actual baseline against which he assigned all other strata. Each layer found represents a segment of time. The cross bedded layer would presumably represent all deposits, wave action, and erosion between Sept 1974 and the start of the 'upper active layer' which may start in 1978, after the severe drought of 1977. If Palmer is correct then the "cross bedded layer" can only correspond to water events between Sept 1974 and say Sept 1978. So the question arises: does the Columbia river height data at the Vancouver station between Sept 1974 and Sept 1978 support multiple cross-bedded deposition events (at Tina Bar) between Sept '74 and Sept '78, and generally I think it does. Palmer had access to those same Vancouver station records I do today. Those water event records seem to confirm the cross-bedded layer consisting of multiple high water events, which Palmer identified as layer "B". On that basis Palmer would be fully justified in claiming that the "clay lump and sand" layer "C" found below the cross bedded sands layer "B", was in fact the dredging sediments from 1974. Then on top of Layer "B" Palmer places the "upper active" layer representing deposits from say Sept 1978 to the current time February of 1980 - and it is in this topmost layer "A" the Ingram money was recovered.

Kaye arrives in 2008 and finds a severely eroded beachfront at Tina bar, Kay can see a clay layer exposed in the erosion cut, and Kaye believes that clay layer he is seeing predates 1974. Tom believes this is the very layer Palmer was looking at in 1980 and called the 'dredge spoils' layer, but it was not. Tom may be saying that the dredge spoils layer had all but washed away by 1980 and so there was no dredging layer to be found, and Palmer misidentified a deeper (pre 1971?) layer as being the 1974 dredge spoils 'clay and sand'. Quite frankly, it is difficult for me to believe Palmer would make such a basic mistake. Palmer was an expert in this area. 

Tom would then assign Palmer's cross bedded sands layer 'C' as consisting of (a) remnants of the dredging spoils  deposited in 1974 and post 1974-Sept 1978 sands laid down by multiple water events between the end of 1974 to say early 1978.

All of this matters because the dating of the layer in which Ingram money was found is crucial. The water records must agree with the strata found, in any event. And the Vancouver station records I have generally support the multiple water-deposition events which Palmer's cross bedded sands layer 'B' implies.

I can easily see how Palmer would have identified anything below layer 'B', especially anything containing clay, as the 1974 bottom dredging sediments which consists of both clay and coarse sand. But, the baseline is set in Palmer's mind once he see's the cross bedded layer 'B'. Stratum 'B' represents a definable period of time against which actual nearby river station records can be checked. Please recall, it was not just Palmer out a Tina Bar alone. He had backup and co-researchers working with him, some of who are named on Kaye's site. (a professional hydrologist for one).
So Palmer is not operating in complete darkness here.

Do water-weather records support the idea that all of the 1974 dredging spoils placed at Tina Bar had withered down to a non-existent thin layer by the time the cross bedded layer 'B' starts to be assembled at Tina Bar? No. There is nothing to support that contention. The best one could do is contend that cross bedded layer 'B' represents a portion of dredging spoils and post-dredging sands laid down between 8-74 and say 9-78 when we are sure the next cycle of deposition with the flood of 1978 begins (and deposits the upper active layer Palmer found).

This exercise illustrates the issues involved. But, water and weather records must correspond and account for whatever beach strata are found, because beach's just don't build themselves!. Beaches are a temporal story of deposition, erosion, water and wave action, et cetera. Beaches are a clock.


Shutter replies:

1) would a core sample be of any value now?

2) Do you believe the money was protected for a period prior to "hitting the beach" (In the bag)

3) How many people thought the plane was over the Woodland area? (has meaning to money find)

Historical Crests for Columbia River at Vancouver

(P): Preliminary values subject to further review.

(1) 31.00 ft on 06/13/1948
(2) 30.80 ft on 06/01/1948
(3) 27.70 ft on 12/25/1964

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It's possible Palmer's dig is right on top of the money find. I never noticed Palmer in this photo while they were sifting the dirt looking for pieces. did he do his examination after the FBI cleared the area?

He was right there in the middle of everyone/everything fully involved -

Ask Tom about the value of taking core samples today and what he thinks, then get back to us?

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

It's possible Palmer's dig is right on top of the money find. I never noticed Palmer in this photo while they were sifting the dirt looking for pieces. did he do his examination after the FBI cleared the area?

He was right there in the middle of everyone/everything fully involved -

Ask Tom about the value of taking core samples today and what he thinks, then get back to us?

Ok....

The USGS website is where I got the numbers....

mail on the way -

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

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It's possible Palmer's dig is right on top of the money find. I never noticed Palmer in this photo while they were sifting the dirt looking for pieces. did he do his examination after the FBI cleared the area?

He was right there in the middle of everyone/everything fully involved -

Ask Tom about the value of taking core samples today and what he thinks, then get back to us?

Ok....

The USGS website is where I got the numbers....

mail on the way -

Got it.... thanks. I'll look at them tomorrow. gotta hit the hay....

later -

The "Flight From Justice" is suppose to be about Cooper, but 98% of it seems to be about McCoy...

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

R99 says: "Tests on the Tina Bar money by Tom Kaye did not find any evidence of Columbia River contamination. But Tom does not consider this to be conclusive pending further testing. "

No, I guess not, but as previously posted, the FBI did their own tests in 1980 and did document evidence of Columbia river water contamination specifically, paraphrasing:

''' ... results of an examination by  laboratory division estimate the amount recovered at approx $5800 ...  finger prints negative ...  evidence of immersion in the Columbia for a long period of time ... mineralogy of silt deposits between the bills consistent with Columbia river water ... examination and comparisons of sand types noted ...'''

I have posted this before. I dont believe Tom had any silt deposits removed from between the bills to examine.
That is probably the source of use of the word 'pending' with respect to this matter. Moreover Tom has never referred to these lab reports the FBI has - why I have no idea.

       

Let me hazard a guess at what some of the FBI's remarks may mean:

1.  The ". . . evidence of immersion in the Columbia for a long period of time . . ." remark may mean only that the Tina Bar money had been exposed to water (from whatever source) for quite a while.  Since the money had been buried at Tina Bar for probably a lengthy time and had undoubtedly been in the sand with several feet of Columbia River water over it at times, the Columbia would be the logical, but not necessarily correct, choice for the water source.

2. The ". . . mineralogy of silt deposits between the bills consistent with Columbia river water . . . examination and comparisons of sand types noted . . ." remarks mean to me that the Tina Bar bills landed very close to the Columbia River and in an area that had been flooded previously by the Columbia with depositing of typical Columbia River silts and sands.  Or to put it another way, the money found at Tina Bar had been there, or very close to Tina Bar, since the hijacking.

Robert99

I agree with your analysis generally. The report documents 'round river sand like that found in the Columbia'. (what other types of sand would it be? or in the Tina Bar area specifically?) "Round sand" caught my attention. Obviously the lab techs were looking for anything that might speak to origin or source of the money. ie trip to Tina Bar from someplace else. It may be they were looking for mineralogical sediments consistent with the Washougal vs Columbia, between the bills? And of course I am sitting here reading report after I received it, under the mandate to look for anything 'in the money that will shed light on the source of the money'. So these FBI lab reports really peaked my interest. If you take the reports at face value, they seem to say the origin of the Cooper money was the Columbia basin itself, and no other (geologically different) region. The reports document 'exposure to Columbia river water'. None of the reports mention finding diatoms. And, so far as I know Tom found nothing to conflict with those early FBI lab reports. The FBI lab reports and Tom's analysis seem to agree.