I read through the entire Tina Bar thread and had some questions;

1) I remember reading about how the money was found at a natural collecting point on the bar. Is this from the Palmer report, or from forum members?

2) I saw that graph showing the various river floods over the decade before the find, but I can't find it with a search, can someone repost it?

3) Georger says the chemistry from the sand between the bills contains elements from the Columbia bottom, is this automatically an endorsement of the dredge theory? Of everything posted, the only thing that really supports the dredge theory would be this information and it would be really nice to confirm it or at least understand it better.

After reading through everything, I favor Palmer's ideas since he examined the layer the money was found in, regardless of what he thought of the clay layer. Does this absolutely preclude the dredge theory?

I read through the entire Tina Bar thread and had some questions;

1) I remember reading about how the money was found at a natural collecting point on the bar. Is this from the Palmer report, or from forum members?

2) I saw that graph showing the various river floods over the decade before the find, but I can't find it with a search, can someone repost it?

3) Georger says the chemistry from the sand between the bills contains elements from the Columbia bottom, is this automatically an endorsement of the dredge theory? Of everything posted, the only thing that really supports the dredge theory would be this information and it would be really nice to confirm it or at least understand it better.

After reading through everything, I favor Palmer's ideas since he examined the layer the money was found in, regardless of what he thought of the clay layer. Does this absolutely preclude the dredge theory?

1. There are bushes and trees immediately behind and downstream of the Kaye-Ingram find coordinates ... a collection (flow resistance) point.

2. attached water levels graph -

3. You have this mixed up. We have no sediment from between the found bills to test, so unknown what its chemistry was. We do have an FBI report stating that their lab analysis of the sands found between the bills showed 'round sand types normally found in Columbia river water' - from this the FBI assumed the bills had been transported by the Columbia River and was in long term contact with Columbia river water vs. other environments where other sand types including 'sharp sand types' are found.

Later, Tom did his own independent spectro scans of 3 Cooper bills supplied by the FBI in order to determine what 'element' strengths show up on the bills, eg. carbon, silver, iron Fe, etc. One unexpected element showed up at a significant strength level. When these results were discussed with a USGS bottom sediment chemist he also noticed the strength of response for one element in particular and surmised this might prove an association between the money and bottom sediments specifically collected from the Columbia at certain mile markers and then deposited on Tina Bar in 1974. The 3 bills seem to suggest contamination by this element. Either the contamination happened through exposure of the bills to sediment on the bottom of the river, or it happened later after these same sediments were deposited on the shoreline through dredging. The chemist felt at least one year or more of exposure would be required.

If the particular elemental association is correct two options are possible: the money was exposed to the element 'after' the dredging in 1974, or, the money was part of the bottom sediments brought up and placed on Tina Bar. The USGS chemist I worked with was 'very certain' the bills were contaminated in some location, because the particular element involved is rather rare in bottom sediments and occurs only at certain locations along the Columbia, and one of those locations just happens to be exactly where the bottom sediments collected and placed on Tina Bar came from. This aspect of the research is still open . . .

The issue is where and when did the contamination occur? When money was 'in' the bottom sediments or later when bottom sediments were placed on Tina Bar? Since the sediments were placed on T-Bar in 1974 does that mean the money came up and was deposited with the sediment, or was already in place at Tina Bar in 1974, or could the money have arrived later and been contaminated by the bottom sediments already in place? We know, for example, that the 1974 bottom sediments were eroding back into the river at a fairly rapid rate after 1974. If the money arrived in 1978-79 could enough of the '74 sediments have still been in place for contamination to occur then? We just dont have a handle on the variables in play. Tom, on the other hand, thinks that by the time the money was discovery in Feb 1980, 'all' of the 1974 bottom sediments were gone - had washed away long before? So timing and the place of contamination of the money by bottom sediments could be crucial to know 'when' the money arrived at Tina Bar, and by what route, on what date. The contamination of the money is a clock we need to unravel.   

Again the question is still open.... the FBI and others have shown no interest in this specific issue! We have known about this possible association since .... c.2008?
   

Thanks, that's a +1 times three.

Let me explain Element-X a little more clearly:

When Tom did his spectral scans of his three bills an 'element-x' turned up on the bills. Element-x is not a normal part of paper money chemistry. And, neither is element-x a significant element in the beach chemistry at Tina Bar, according to a USGS chemist(s).

Element-x is however, a rather rare 'marker element' in certain bottom sediments in specific known zones, in the Columbia River. The zone where bottom sediments were dredged from and placed on Tina Bar, is known as one of the 'element-x' hot spots (according to the USGS chemist). The USGS chemist we consulted checked this out very thoroughly with colleagues, in addition to having done his own research on bottom sediments in the Columbia for many years.

Unless some other source can be shown which explains 'element-x' at Tina Bar, the one logical source is the 1974 dredging spoils pulled from a region known to contain element-x, those dredging spoils then deposited on Tina Bar in 1974.

The hypothesis is the money got contaminated by the spoils "on" Tina Bar, or perhaps the money was part of the bottom spoils to begin with and came up with the spoils deposited and spread on Tina Bar?

Are all of the Cooper bills contaminated by element-x? So far a we know, no one has ever checked. There would have been no reason to check because today's Columbia water and bottom sediment chemistry data did not exist in 1980... but today Ingram's bills and bills owned by others could be scanned and check for element-x. Bills the FBI owns could be checked. It would be interesting to know if interior bills in bundles showed the same levels of contamination as surface bills. Varying levels of contamination among bills would be useful information to have.  ...

 









 

     

Quote

Unless some other source can be shown which explains 'element-x' at Tina Bar, the one logical source is the 1974 dredging spoils pulled from a region known to contain element-x, those dredging spoils then deposited on Tina Bar in 1974

Why is Tom against the dredge theory if this is the logical source? I would believe this theory, but only if it can get past the pump. it is extremely logical, but can it become a fact?

I cant speak for Tom, but my feeling is (a) Tom didn't think the presence of element-x in his bill scans was unusual, (b) he didn't think the level of 'x' was significant enough to warrant further exploration, (c) he thought the USGS chemist's claims were either bogus or nonsense or wrong, (d) ... the horoscope for element-x was wrong!   

Fact is, until I talked to the USGS chemist I saw nothing unusual about element-x in Tom's scans. It was the USGS chemist that raised a flag the moment I mentioned element-x.

Tom's claim was that there were no 1974 dredging sediments left six years later in 1980, on Tina Bar, to contaminate anything with. The USGS chemist wasn't sure about that claim.

The chemist suggested that wood, trees, and other artifacts at Tina Bar be tested for element-x and compared with similar artifacts from other beaches on the Columbia - as a control. He suggested that some lab work should also be done to establish a dose-response timeline for exposure to element-x; he said the USGS had already done some studies and he would get that info to me ....

A primary question we were tasked to answer was "when" the money had arrived on Tina Bar. Contamination levels might help answer that, but the work was not completed ... Tom didn't think the presence of element-x was significant and he had other priorities. Frankly, I was being intimidated from every possible angle and I (and others) finally just said "Fuck it!" and I dropped the whole thing to wait for Tom's work to be completed. Later, I set up a second round of testing using Brian Ingram bills but word of that leaked out and that was shot down also! Ingram abruptly cancelled delivering money specimens to us! (People waiting in labs were really pissed and at that point we literally gave up on this whole fiasco ...everything had become political.) Those are the facts.   

It had taken me weeks to set up a second round of testing using named people in labs across America. The testing scheduled was going to be far above anything Tom Kaye is even capable of doing. What I arranged was a kind of 'cooperative of testing' where everyone results were going to be shared, universally. I thought we stood a pretty good chance of providing brand new information about the money, hopefully answering a few basic questions, and perhaps scoring a breakthrough. I was basically going to finally do the testing I had originally wanted to do vs turning things over to Tom Kaye alone (which is what Larry Carr did).

My arguement/arrangement with Brian Ingram was very simple: I told him we would cover all costs, we would provide him with signed copies of all tests done, and I told him that by the end of this he would have a very unique package of information to go along with his bills ... and that it was my feeling all of that would raise the value of his bills at auction. Everyone signed up to do the lab testing had agreed to this premise. I clearly understood Brian's interests were economic, while our interests were pure research  and documentation trying to gain some hard information in the DB Cooper case, something that would help the FBI. In the end, Brian nixed the whole thing. Tom was left to do his work, book writers were left to write their books, ... and I and others just 'called it a day' in this whole enterprise. It's kind of funny when you think about it. C'est la vie.       
       

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote

Unless some other source can be shown which explains 'element-x' at Tina Bar, the one logical source is the 1974 dredging spoils pulled from a region known to contain element-x, those dredging spoils then deposited on Tina Bar in 1974

Why is Tom against the dredge theory if this is the logical source? I would believe this theory, but only if it can get past the pump. it is extremely logical, but can it become a fact?

I cant speak for Tom, but my feeling is (a) Tom didn't think the presence of element-x in his bill scans was unusual, (b) he didn't think the level of 'x' was significant enough to warrant further exploration, (c) he thought the USGS chemist's claims were either bogus or nonsense or wrong, (d) ... the horoscope for element-x was wrong!   

Fact is, until I talked to the USGS chemist I saw nothing unusual about element-x in Tom's scans. It was the USGS chemist that raised a flag the moment I mentioned element-x.

Tom's claim was that there were no 1974 dredging sediments left six years later in 1980, on Tina Bar, to contaminate anything with. The USGS chemist wasn't sure about that claim.

The chemist suggested that wood, trees, and other artifacts at Tina Bar be tested for element-x and compared with similar artifacts from other beaches on the Columbia - as a control. He suggested that some lab work should also be done to establish a dose-response timeline for exposure to element-x; he said the USGS had already done some studies and he would get that info to me ....

A primary question we were tasked to answer was "when" the money had arrived on Tina Bar. Contamination levels might help answer that, but the work was not completed ... Tom didn't think the presence of element-x was significant and he had other priorities. Frankly, I was being intimidated from every possible angle and I (and others) finally just said "Fuck it!" and I dropped the whole thing to wait for Tom's work to be completed. Later I set up a second round of testing using Brian Ingram bills but word of that leaked out and that was shot down also! Ingram abruptly cancelled delivering money specimens to us! (People were really pissed and at that point we literally gave up on this whole fiasco ...everything had become political.) Those are the facts.      
       

Still, it sounds like an experiment we can do, assuming we can get the material from the Columbia to test.

Without bill samples there is no point

Very interesting discussion. Thanks, Georger and Andrade.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Very interesting discussion. Thanks, Georger and Andrade.

I may have never said this in straightforward terms but, I believe the number of options for how Cooper money wound up on Tina Bar is small, all natural explanations, it was not a plant (not even remotely!), and if a better forensic analysis of the problem had been done, we would have those answers today.

Larry Carr had the right idea asking for a forensic analysis of the problem.  And the advantage was always going to be with people in the State of Washington who have a deep insight and experience with the geological, hydrological, and bio-chemical facts of the Columbia basin associated with the actual flight path. In that regard the FBI people always had it right, to use that particular expertise in what generally is a 'regional' forensic problem. The direction was always correct - the execution was all that was lacking.

To add my own two bits to this, I think Tom Kaye (and you?) are right about the money being at Tina Bar prior to the 1974 dredging although it may have later been exposed to the drainage from the dredged materials.

IF Cooper actually landed in the Columbia River, and I don't think he did, then he would almost certainly have landed in the river after it makes its turn to the North towards Tina Bar and not in the portion of the river that flows East to West through Portland and Vancouver.  And I think he and the money bag would have drifted past Tina Bar long before ending up at the bottom of that 40+ foot shipping channel.

And frankly, I doubt very much that Cooper lost the money bag on the way down.

So the end result of this line of reasoning is that Cooper must have landed just upstream (to the South) of Tina Bar and spent some time there on solid ground.  And somewhere between late 1971 and the time the dredged spoils were dumped on Tina Bar, at least the money bag (and maybe Cooper also) made it to/past Tina Bar as the result of seasonal flooding on the Columbia River.

 

Quote

IF Cooper actually landed in the Columbia River, and I don't think he did, then he would almost certainly have landed in the river after it makes its turn to the North towards Tina Bar and not in the portion of the river that flows East to West through Portland and Vancouver.

Do you base this solely on the timing of the jump, or is there a hydrological reason?

At the present time, there is nothing that conclusively supports any flight path for the airliner in the Vancouver/Portland area.  However, there is evidence (which has been discussed at length both here and on DZ) that the airliner flew directly from about the Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection and bypassed Portland on the west side.

The direct route from the Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection passes almost directly (within a few hundred feet) overhead of Tina Bar.  The distance from the Malay Intersection to the Canby Intersection is 67.0 nautical miles.

According to a note in the "FBI files" that are online and a copy of the ARINC teletypewriter print outs, the airliner reported at 8:22 PM PST that it was 23 DME miles south of the Portland (now Battleground) VORTAC.  However, an individual from NWA gives the time of arrival of that voice message as 8:18 PM PST in Seattle which was phone-patched into the ARINC radio communications.

On the direct route from the Malay to Canby Intersections, this corresponds to a point that is 19 nautical miles south of Tina Bar.  If the airliner had a ground speed of exactly 3.0 nautical miles per minute, this would put the airliner 6:20 (minutes:seconds) south of Tina Bar.  This means that the airliner passed overhead of Tina bar at about 8:11:40 PM PST.

If the money landed directly on Tina Bar, which it did not, then Cooper would have had to separate from the airliner about 8:11:35 PM, assuming a 1500 foot "throw distance".  Cooper would have to separate from the airliner within the next 3.5 nautical miles or he would have landed on solid ground in Portland itself.  This means that the latest time that Cooper could have jumped and landed in the Columbia River would be about 8:12:45 PM.

The above assumes that Cooper was a no-pull, no cross wind, etc..  In reality, Cooper was probably a no-pull and there was a cross wind.  This means that Cooper impacted land or water within about 40 to 60 seconds after separating from the aircraft.  So the airliner was probably about over the western edge of the Columbia River when Cooper jumped.  And he probably impacted on land on the east side of the Columbia River or on Caterpillar Island itself.

All of the above numbers can be refined if accurate data about the airliner's actual flight path can be located.  Nevertheless, the jump time estimates are consistent with the presently available data.

From a hydrological point of view, if Cooper had landed in the area of the Columbia River that runs east and west, I think he and/or the money would have ended up on the western bank of the Columbia rather than the eastern bank.  Going around that 90 degree turn would cause that.