"Professor PALMER stated this clay layer in all probability, was deposited during that 1974 dredging."
This statement appears to be that Palmer really didn't know much about the layers. these are the things that bother me when they conclude something. it's more probable vs fact.
"The material deposited on the beach was spread with tractors probably over an area of 50 yards in each direction.
To rule out something, we need facts. then they use the "auger" to appear that it would rip the bills apart. this is a slow moving bit with suction. I don't think much damage would occur. the pump is the question more than the bit.
The discovery of the natural clay layers suggests that Palmer misinterpreted the clay as man-made when it fact it was a natural part of the beach stratigraphy. Palmer working with limited information could not have interpreted the clay layers as a natural feature of the shoreline. The continuous erosion of the sand since 1980 to its current level (Figs. 4,5), suggests that prior to 1974, the level of the beach was maintained by the addition of dredging sands. These sand deposits can be seen in subsequent years moving downstream with river flow along the sand bar. This further suggests that once the dredging sands were no longer replenishing the beach after 1974, natural erosion took place which eventually uncovered the Cooper Bills in 1980.
I'm not stating the dredge had anything to do with it, but it's hard to rule out when you see the words "probability & probably"
Yes. The words "in all probability" (Palmer) and "probably spread 50 yards" (Bechly)are in the FBI summary reports written by some FBI agent. But note Kaye uses the "probably 50 yards" to basically mean '50 yards and no more' in his finding that the dredge pile and the money were so far apart that there can be no physical connection.
Tom is taking some liberty in this. Tom uses "in all probability" (Palmer) as meaning 'Palmer was unsure of the layer identification'. He then turns around and cites '50 yards' as a dead certainty and dismisses 'probably'.
More important, "in all probability" and "probably" are the FBI transcribers words, not Palmer's words or the words of Bechly the person who issued the dredging report! But Kaye is using these words as if they are quotes from Palmer and Bechly, which they are not! These are the FBI transcriber's words !
Fact is nobody but the Fazios know how far they spread the dredging debris - their contract called for "50 yards", I was told. Nobody knows how much the spoils migrated north after that. I do know this: the bills Tom tested lit up for certain elements which the USGS chemist I talked to thinks suggested contamination from bottom dredging sands from the bottom area where the sediments were pulled from. Manganese in particular. That was not welcome news to me frankly, because I have enough problem with how the money bag or the bundles could have become part of the bottom sediment in that area, in the first place - to be dredged up and put on any shoreline!
I also have a very difficult time thinking Palmer was wrong and screwed up?
I think R99's theory is as plausible as any theory.
If the USGS chemist is correct the bundles were contaminated by bottom sediments dredged in 1974 and that contamination could have happened later.
Those dredging spoils and their contamination migrated around after they were put on Tina Bar. The question is how much and how far, and when.
Poll