I like it!  Damned good work!!!

Can you write the options out ...

Options, what do you mean?

The options displayed on your video - can you put your video in writing.

Good post Georger!. Nice to see rational discussions of physical evidence rather than personal snipes etc.

Palmer was no dummy. This was right in his area of expertise. His on-site observations and conclusions that were contemporaneous with the money find have to be given some serious weight. Could he have made an error? Sure, but he wasn't shooting from the hip. He looked at sedimentation layers, analysed their content and came to some reasoned conclusions.

If there was, as reported by some, a large shard field of currency pieces it rules out my wacky theory that Brian was subtly led to his campfire find site by those who put the loot there.

Haven't been jumping during the winter. In my crazy youth I jumped in very cold weather, even in hail once (unintentionally). As I got older and wiser I started asking myself why jump when it's so damned cold? Now I just watch crazy BASE wingsuit jumps on YouTube and wait for spring and summer.

377

The problem I have with the Palmer Report is Palmer doesn't say anything about erosion or mixing of his layers. Not one word. We are left to assume the layers he found were static over time and well defined - had not mixed one into the other. And he stresses 'the money did not work its up to the top from a lower layer'. He says, 'the money had to have arrived with the last water event and is in the upper active layer (only)'. He then goes on to say maybe more money (fragments) would be found downstream, but there is no indication anyone looked downstream at any distance north of the Ingram find.

I believe Palmer's Layer No.2 may be key to this whole problem. That is the cross-bedded layer approx 4-8" deep or deeper, which separates Palmer's clay-sand mix layer from the upper active layer at the surface. This cross bedded layer is a clock and took time to lay down; it represents successive water events and mixed layers of sands which took time to form (years). One crucial question Palmer does not address is: 'were dredge sediments (clay-sand) mixed in with the cross-bedded layer? Palmer is firm that the money did not work it's way up from the dredging layer to the surface, but if dredging clay was mixed into the cross bedded layer that would represent mixing of sort which might bring something in the surface of the 74 dredging layer being worked through upper layers, as it worked its way north from the dredging pile through successive water events over time? Palmer says this did not happen, but he does not address the issue of "mixing".

If the upper active layer represents sand deposited from say  Dec78 to Jan79 as Palmer suggests, then the cross-bedded layer below the surface layer has to represent the period from Dec78 to September 1974. That would be more than enough time to form a cross bedded layer representing years of many water events and mixing.

We don't know that vertical and lateral erosion was equal at all points along the beach, south-to-north. Moreover, Palmer does not tell us if his layer #1 and #2 were of equal thickness at the Ingram site vs the site 25 yards south of the Ingram site. All he tells us is that the "dredging layer" was 2ft thick at the Ingram site vs 4+ feet thick 25 yrds south of the Ingram site. But, Palmer doesn't address how layers #1 and #2 varied in thickness at these two sites. So, once again, we really don't have a handle on the mount of mixing and erosion at various points along Tena Bar, which has always been my major criticism of the Palmer Report.

My suspicion is there was greater erosion and movement of material on the southern part of Tena Bar vs further north near the Ingram site. If there was unequal erosion south-to-north, that offers the possibility that while a bundles of money may not have 'worked their way up' through the layers, they may have "migrated" from the surface of the dredging spoils at one date, then moved north in a series of movements, always being somewhat near the surface, while other layers were being assembled (around or below them!). That kind of movement could explain fragments being found, north to south at different depths from the surface down to -3 or -4 feet as strata over the dredging layer was changing and being assembled around, below, and then over the Ingram bundles through time. But, we have no easy way to test this because Palmer does not tell us the thickness of layers #1 and #2 at his 25 yard south location, that we can compare to the Ingram site north of the original dredging pile. All Palmer tell us is that his dredging layer #3 was 2 feet thick near the Ingram site and (predictably thicker) 4 feet thick 25 yards further south closer to the original dredging pile where we know spreading occurred.

A strict non-mixing interpretation of Palmer is that the money arrived between Dec 1978 and January 1979, to be discovered in February 1980.

         
       

see attachment

If you look at the above photo you will see that they did look downstream from the money. the photo ends, but it looks like about 100 feet north of the dig...

I think Palmer was talking about looking even further north ... I think he thought that more money could have passed through and lodged elsewhere north of Tena Bar. Like here -

The status of the Money at Tena Bar -

Several people are looking into different aspects of the money find. There likely won't be anything new until their work is more complete. Meanwhile ...

*A USGS seismic expert was contacted in Portland. While the Portland-Vancouver area has fault systems running underneath it, and the Mt St Helens event happened in May of 1980 following the discovery of money at Tena Bar in February 1980, the USGS expert looked at records and said there were no major tremors in the Portland or Vancouver area during the period leading up to the discovery of money at Tena Bar. He could find no evidence that seismic activity had anything to do with transporting debris to Tena Bar, radical changes in the hydro system of the Columbia basin, etc. He felt that the money being found at Tena Bar was most likely the result of long term hydrological events as they naturally occur in the Columbia basin. This expert felt that if Cooper survived the jump, the discovery of money at Tena Bar might be due to Cooper himself traveling through the area known to supply debris up stream, which includes Tena Bar. He said this could include the money bag being snagged in the river then sucked up and delivered to Tena Bar specifically, during the dredging project in 1974. He said that is the one explanation that involves Tena Bar, specifically. But, he stresses that for any of these scenarios to happen, Cooper or someone carrying the Cooper money, must be physically present in the area. He says there really is no other explanation without a major change in facts of the Cooper case. He says transport from the northern part of the Washougal to Tena Bar is impossible.

He says the solution to this problem is almost certainly hydrological, but for that to happen Cooper himself (or his money) must be in the area, after the jump. This expert thinks that the discovery of Cooper money at Tena Bar implies that Cooper survived, and there really is no other alternative under the present (Ckret) facts of the case. 

 

I don't follow the logic of the last sentence in the above post, but I think I have made similar posts along this line before.

If Cooper survived, just where did he "survive"?  If you would change "survived" to "un-survived" in the above post, I would be in complete agreement with just about everything in that post.

But if Cooper survived in the Tena Bar area, just how did the money get buried in the sand there and why didn't he take it with him?

That said, I do like Tom. He's a very pleasant fellow

I respect Tom for everything he has done, and respect him as a person.

Sadly, I believe he went to the wrong location where the money was found. one of his key points was a dirt road found on the upper part of the beach. the problem is that there were two similar roads, and one was missing during his time on the beach. one of his photo's is where he does an overlay that shows the position in two different time periods.

the first layer is a photo from 2005 (not 2009). the second layer is the view from the helicopter capturing the area of the money find. they are two different spots. I was able to easily find this location using photo's from different years.

I will have to do another video because of the amount of photo's. I will try and be as detailed as I can be....

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The status of the Money at Tena Bar -

Several people are looking into different aspects of the money find. There likely won't be anything new until their work is more complete. Meanwhile ...

*A USGS seismic expert was contacted in Portland. While the Portland-Vancouver area has fault systems running underneath it, and the Mt St Helens event happened in May of 1980 following the discovery of money at Tena Bar in February 1980, the USGS expert looked at records and said there were no major tremors in the Portland or Vancouver area during the period leading up to the discovery of money at Tena Bar. He could find no evidence that seismic activity had anything to do with transporting debris to Tena Bar, radical changes in the hydro system of the Columbia basin, etc. He felt that the money being found at Tena Bar was most likely the result of long term hydrological events as they naturally occur in the Columbia basin. This expert felt that if Cooper survived the jump, the discovery of money at Tena Bar might be due to Cooper himself traveling through the area known to supply debris up stream, which includes Tena Bar. He said this could include the money bag being snagged in the river then sucked up and delivered to Tena Bar specifically, during the dredging project in 1974. He said that is the one explanation that involves Tena Bar, specifically. But, he stresses that for any of these scenarios to happen, Cooper or someone carrying the Cooper money, must be physically present in the area. He says there really is no other explanation without a major change in facts of the Cooper case. He says transport from the northern part of the Washougal to Tena Bar is impossible.

He says the solution to this problem is almost certainly hydrological, but for that to happen Cooper himself (or his money) must be in the area, after the jump. This expert thinks that the discovery of Cooper money at Tena Bar implies that Cooper survived, and there really is no other alternative under the present (Ckret) facts of the case. 

 

I don't follow the logic of the last sentence in the above post, but I think I have made similar posts along this line before.

If Cooper survived, just where did he "survive"?  If you would change "survived" to "un-survived" in the above post, I would be in complete agreement with just about everything in that post.

But if Cooper survived in the Tena Bar area, just how did the money get buried in the sand there and why didn't he take it with him?

The geologist is saying that the money and Cooper are inseparable. That the money cannot even be in the Columbia basin without a living Cooper, himself. That Cooper must have survived and traveled from the northern dropzone to the Vancouver area, under the current FBI narrative of the case. He thinks that Cooper and the money had to be together in the area that brings debris to Tena Bar hydrologically, and the hydrological zone favored is no further away than the Columbia-Willemette confluence and probably closer.