I can't see that this would be the area...
You're right - that north dredge bulge is almost centered on the road down from the buildings (see my line). I dont know if the south digging (shown in news vid) is going on where that dredge bulge was in 1974, but if it is then it fits with what Palmer said when he said they dug one trench and took measurements at approx near the Ingram site, and at a place approx 25 yards to the south ... all of this shown in the KIRO vid (in your pic) above. Palmer measured his 'dredging layer' as approx 2ft thick near the Ingram site but 4ft thick 25 yards south of the Ingram site which is closer to the 1974 dredge bulge. Palmer's statement and the news vid photo and the 74/79 usgs photos are beginning to fit together in a consistent narrative...
I CANNOT GET THE EDIT FUNCTION TO WORK!
The red line in the upper right hand corner needs to be rotated counter-clockwise so that it is parallel to the line of parked cars in the upper right hand corner. When this is done, the trees on the berm on the west side of the containment pit will be directly below it. And the red lines on the right side of the picture will be located almost at the Tina Bar gate.
Georger, didn't you say previously that the Fazio long building was about 200 feet long?
220.86 feet (73.62 yd) . see attached. Shutter did a search of Clark County records (I think) and found this.
I think we have a clearer picture of the dig and what was going on there and where. A better perspective on relative
Somebody made the decision to dig the section 25 yards south of the Ingram find section, to get a measurement of the thickness of the 'dredge layer'. There is a reason they dug there (and we don't know the reason) except it may have been Palmer who decided to explore a trench south of the Ingram find, closer to the original '74 dredge pile? He may have wanted to confirm the existence of a dredging layer there to further test the issue of whether Brian's money was in upper sand only (and a recent arrival) vs. being a part of the deeper dredging spoils layer. And indeed, Palmer found an even thicker dredging layer at 25 yards than he had found near the Ingram site. This would have reinforced Palmer's reading that the money was part of the upper layer only and a recent arrival, and not part of the dredging material from 1974.
Schreuder didn't say anything about any of this to me, or apparently to Smith either. But, Schreuder wasn't present during this part of the excavation. He might not have known what Palmer did or where Palmer dug, in two locations?
If Tom can prove that his clay is the same material as Palmer's "clay lump/sand mixture" then this might revise the evidence, more in favor of a 'dredge spoil' by-product. But until Tom proves that correspondence, Tom's statements are nothing more than an opinion on his part. Palmer is *very clear about what he found and the makeup of that material, as per my post yesterday.
And fragments are unproven in all of this?
I know people are tired of this but there is one exception I need to mention: Palmer doesn't tell us anything about the thickness of the upper two layers on top of his clay-sand mixed layer at the 25yds position. All Palmer tells us is that the clay-lump & sand layer was 2ft thick in his trench near the Ingram site, and 4ft thick 25 yards further south which is closer to the original 1974 dredge pile site. Palmer doesn't tell us how thick the upper layers were at the 25 yard site! Were they as thick as at the Ingram site, thicker, or less thick? He just doesn't tell us. This is important because if the upper layers at the 25 yard site are thicker than at the Ingram site, then Palmer's spreading thesis has a problem. Why would there be less erosion in the upper layers at the 25 yard site vs the Ingram site? The amount of erosion should be approximately the same, all things being equal.
If on the other hand, the upper layers at the 25 yard site are "thinner' than at the Ingram site, with a thicker layer C under the thinner top layers, that could suggest "greater top erosion at the Ingram site" vs. less erosion at the Ingram site. That would be a potentially important anomaly, in my opinion; that could offer up the possibility that the Ingram money eroded out of the dredging spoils at some earlier date and moved to the Ingram site where it stalled, and was covered over by newer deposits after that.
As I read Palmer's report I get the impression of somebody trying to be thorough and precise in his work, and trying to cover all the options. Tom acknowledges that Dr. Palmer was an "expert in sedimentation". Palmer also had to be sensitive to erosion, periods of water elevation, etc in his work ... and his report conveys these sensitivities. I therefore have to believe that Palmer did not find a thicker or thinner upper deposit above his clay-sand layer at the 25 yard site but upper layers which were approximately the same in both places which implies equal erosion in both places. But he does find a substantially thicker clay-sand layer at 25 yards vs. at the Ingram site ... because quite frankly he is 25 yards "closer" to the original dredge dump site where spreading occurred and you would expect a thicker dredging layer there than 25 yards to the north which is slightly further away from where the mythical "spread 50 yards in both directions" supposedly occurred. Palmer's findings make sense and comport with the facts, as known.
Palmer may be correct and the money was a relatively recent arrival. Robert99 may be correct in that the money arrived from relatively close by, during the last water period of Dec 78-Jan 79 which deposited the upper active layer Palmer found and documented.
Poll