You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

JLa wrote: "200k just sounds so "precise" and almost pretentious to me."

I have no good ideas on why that amount was requested by Cooper.

Precise yes, but why is that precise request seen as pretentious?

McCoy showed that DBC left a lot of money on the table asking for only $200K.
McCoy demanded $500K, got it, successfully landed it and got it home.

377

Georger summed up what I mean with "pretentious." It wasn't like "give me all the money you got!" Or a go for broke demand. It just seems too too precise. Maybe its just my OCD.

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

JLa wrote: "200k just sounds so "precise" and almost pretentious to me."

I have no good ideas on why that amount was requested by Cooper.

Precise yes, but why is that precise request seen as pretentious?

McCoy showed that DBC left a lot of money on the table asking for only $200K.
McCoy demanded $500K, got it, successfully landed it and got it home.

377

Georger summed up what I mean with "pretentious." It wasn't like "give me all the money you got!" Or a go for broke demand. It just seems too too precise. Maybe its just my OCD.

What we need, still need ... is a working model of Tina Bar. Palmer did not provide one. Kaye has provided part of one (his own). R99 and others have provided pieces of one. We have all the news photos of the excavation. We need a working model of Tina Bar - which explains its history say 1970-1980 when the Ingram money was found! 

If Kaye is right and the clay layer he found extends all the way down and is part of the sub-stratum to the river channel itself (this is what I understand Kaye to be saying), then Palmer was indeed wrong and his clay-lump layer had nothing to do with the 1974 dredging spoils. Those spoils, or what was left of them after erosion since 74, would have been on top of Palmer's clay-lump layer. Kaye could be right. Kaye has been around a lot of excavations during his career and I know he has argued sands and sediments with people before (rather successfully). (I knew that from Tom's resume when he was brought on board).

I think if Tom is right then the origin of the Ingram money and all fragments of Cooper money found, is tied up with the layers above Palmer's clay-lump layer. That means (instantly) that erosion and shifting of sands with erosion is in play, as part of the modeling of Tina Bar. The money fragments found and perhaps the Ingram bundles themselves probably went along with the sand layers that contained them. Are we looking at a static picture or a picture which includes movement, shifting, and erosion over the years? Fragments at three feet almost guarantees the money arrived long before 1980. Tom thinks that is the case; his date in 1971. Agents on the scene in 1980 thought the money had been in the sandbar some years.  Palmer was resistant to the idea. Did the Ingram bundles simply erode out finally being exposed at the surface, for someone to notice? That seems the most probable scenario to me.

Only a correct modeling of Tina will clear this up.   

When considering the situation at Tina Bar (or anywhere else), please remember that any vertical movement of the money, at least upwards, requires energy from some source.  For instance, if the money was in the money bag and it was floatable, rising water levels could elevate the money bag but not move it up the beach past the water's edge.  However, it is very unlikely that either Cooper's body or the money bag were floatable by the time the Spring water runoff started.

Consequently, the movement of the money found at Tina Bar has to be downwards, or towards the river water or a lower level while in the river water itself, even as it travels downstream.  This is simply a case of the money moving towards a lower energy position.

In reality, the only reasonable explanation for the fragments to be at a greater depth than the money bundles is that "somebody", maybe some government agency or the Fazio family, dumped a lot of sand on the beach and money after it had arrived and then used a grader or tractor to "shape" the Tina Bar beach.  This would presumably be after a high water level event that had reached the level of Cooper's body and washed it and/or the money bag downstream.  This could have happened while the water level was so high that the body or bag was still underwater and not noticed.

As the high water receded, the body and bag went on downstream while the bundles and fragments that came out of the bag was covered by the sand movement caused by the high water.  Then the addition of sand and other materials to repair the erosion would cover the bundles and fragments.  Perhaps an annual re-sanding and shaping of the beach by tractors or such would eventually result in much more sand covering the fragments than the bundles.

It would be desirable to have an answer to the relative heights above sea level of the bundles and the fragments.  My understanding is that the bundles were closer to the water when found and that the fragments were a bit higher up the beach and further away from the water.

And all of this sequence could have started with the Spring 1972 water runoff.  Also, it is unlikely that the erosion that would have occurred with the Spring 1980 runoff had been repaired in mid-February when the money was found.  Further, the bundles were found under only two or three inches of sand just above the water line and, presumably, the fragments were found at a deeper level under the sand and higher up the beach.

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

JLa wrote: "200k just sounds so "precise" and almost pretentious to me."

I have no good ideas on why that amount was requested by Cooper.

Precise yes, but why is that precise request seen as pretentious?

McCoy showed that DBC left a lot of money on the table asking for only $200K.
McCoy demanded $500K, got it, successfully landed it and got it home.

377

Georger summed up what I mean with "pretentious." It wasn't like "give me all the money you got!" Or a go for broke demand. It just seems too too precise. Maybe its just my OCD.

What we need, still need ... is a working model of Tina Bar. Palmer did not provide one. Kaye has provided part of one (his own). R99 and others have provided pieces of one. We have all the news photos of the excavation. We need a working model of Tina Bar - which explains its history say 1970-1980 when the Ingram money was found! 

If Kaye is right and the clay layer he found extends all the way down and is part of the sub-stratum to the river channel itself (this is what I understand Kaye to be saying), then Palmer was indeed wrong and his clay-lump layer had nothing to do with the 1974 dredging spoils. Those spoils, or what was left of them after erosion since 74, would have been on top of Palmer's clay-lump layer. Kaye could be right. Kaye has been around a lot of excavations during his career and I know he has argued sands and sediments with people before (rather successfully). (I knew that from Tom's resume when he was brought on board).

I think if Tom is right then the origin of the Ingram money and all fragments of Cooper money found, is tied up with the layers above Palmer's clay-lump layer. That means (instantly) that erosion and shifting of sands with erosion is in play, as part of the modeling of Tina Bar. The money fragments found and perhaps the Ingram bundles themselves probably went along with the sand layers that contained them. Are we looking at a static picture or a picture which includes movement, shifting, and erosion over the years? Fragments at three feet almost guarantees the money arrived long before 1980. Tom thinks that is the case; his date in 1971. Agents on the scene in 1980 thought the money had been in the sandbar some years.  Palmer was resistant to the idea. Did the Ingram bundles simply erode out finally being exposed at the surface, for someone to notice? That seems the most probable scenario to me.

Only a correct modeling of Tina will clear this up.   

When considering the situation at Tina Bar (or anywhere else), please remember that any vertical movement of the money, at least upwards, requires energy from some source.  For instance, if the money was in the money bag and it was floatable, rising water levels could elevate the money bag but not move it up the beach past the water's edge.  However, it is very unlikely that either Cooper's body or the money bag were floatable by the time the Spring water runoff started.

Consequently, the movement of the money found at Tina Bar has to be downwards, or towards the river water or a lower level while in the river water itself, even as it travels downstream.  This is simply a case of the money moving towards a lower energy position.

In reality, the only reasonable explanation for the fragments to be at a greater depth than the money bundles is that "somebody", maybe some government agency or the Fazio family, dumped a lot of sand on the beach and money after it had arrived and then used a grader or tractor to "shape" the Tina Bar beach.  This would presumably be after a high water level event that had reached the level of Cooper's body and washed it and/or the money bag downstream.  This could have happened while the water level was so high that the body or bag was still underwater and not noticed.

As the high water receded, the body and bag went on downstream while the bundles and fragments that came out of the bag was covered by the sand movement caused by the high water.  Then the addition of sand and other materials to repair the erosion would cover the bundles and fragments.  Perhaps an annual re-sanding and shaping of the beach by tractors or such would eventually result in much more sand covering the fragments than the bundles.

It would be desirable to have an answer to the relative heights above sea level of the bundles and the fragments.  My understanding is that the bundles were closer to the water when found and that the fragments were a bit higher up the beach and further away from the water.

And all of this sequence could have started with the Spring 1972 water runoff.  Also, it is unlikely that the erosion that would have occurred with the Spring 1980 runoff had been repaired in mid-February when the money was found.  Further, the bundles were found under only two or three inches of sand just above the water line and, presumably, the fragments were found at a deeper level under the sand and higher up the beach.

I think you may be vastly over complicating this.

I find it hard to believe money arrived on the bar, in the same location, by multiple events from some 'same source' over a long period of time. I favor a single deposition, due to one event? Time and circumstance then provides the total context found in 1980. That is why, frankly, the dredging explanation is so powerful. It has the potential of supplying the strata, fragments, and bundles we find in 1980 all separated by layers = time?   

Not so fast!  Everything I wrote above implied that the money, both bundles and fragments, could have arrived at Tina Bar at the same time.  And in doing so the bundles and fragments would have initially been on top of the sand, even if the sand itself was underwater at that time.

Let me point out again that one of the bundles Tom examined had many of the bills torn off close to one end.  And it gave every appearance that the bills had been "rotated" in that bundle, apparently due to the single rubber band with the bundle being loose (maybe from bills that had already been lost from that bundle).  This rotation could have occurred when the bottom bills lodged in the sand while under water and the water current then causing the top bills to rotate and eventually tear off at one end.

I think the deposition of the money at Tina Bar is a one time event and that the bundles and fragments ended up at different levels below the top of the sand due to the repeated  addition of more sand to repair the erosion problems.  That is, after the money arrived the sand at Tina Bar was repeatedly graded which action essentially "churned" the sand and there were no meaningful layers in it when Palmer and the FBI was there.

The next time you speak to DS, please ask him about this.  What was the relative height of the bundles and fragments with respect to each other, and also with respect to sea level and also with respect to the top of the sand?  We may be making a bigger deal out of the way the bundles and fragments got arranged in the sand than the circumstances require.   

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

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

JLa wrote: "200k just sounds so "precise" and almost pretentious to me."

I have no good ideas on why that amount was requested by Cooper.

Precise yes, but why is that precise request seen as pretentious?

McCoy showed that DBC left a lot of money on the table asking for only $200K.
McCoy demanded $500K, got it, successfully landed it and got it home.

377

Georger summed up what I mean with "pretentious." It wasn't like "give me all the money you got!" Or a go for broke demand. It just seems too too precise. Maybe its just my OCD.

What we need, still need ... is a working model of Tina Bar. Palmer did not provide one. Kaye has provided part of one (his own). R99 and others have provided pieces of one. We have all the news photos of the excavation. We need a working model of Tina Bar - which explains its history say 1970-1980 when the Ingram money was found! 

If Kaye is right and the clay layer he found extends all the way down and is part of the sub-stratum to the river channel itself (this is what I understand Kaye to be saying), then Palmer was indeed wrong and his clay-lump layer had nothing to do with the 1974 dredging spoils. Those spoils, or what was left of them after erosion since 74, would have been on top of Palmer's clay-lump layer. Kaye could be right. Kaye has been around a lot of excavations during his career and I know he has argued sands and sediments with people before (rather successfully). (I knew that from Tom's resume when he was brought on board).

I think if Tom is right then the origin of the Ingram money and all fragments of Cooper money found, is tied up with the layers above Palmer's clay-lump layer. That means (instantly) that erosion and shifting of sands with erosion is in play, as part of the modeling of Tina Bar. The money fragments found and perhaps the Ingram bundles themselves probably went along with the sand layers that contained them. Are we looking at a static picture or a picture which includes movement, shifting, and erosion over the years? Fragments at three feet almost guarantees the money arrived long before 1980. Tom thinks that is the case; his date in 1971. Agents on the scene in 1980 thought the money had been in the sandbar some years.  Palmer was resistant to the idea. Did the Ingram bundles simply erode out finally being exposed at the surface, for someone to notice? That seems the most probable scenario to me.

Only a correct modeling of Tina will clear this up.   

When considering the situation at Tina Bar (or anywhere else), please remember that any vertical movement of the money, at least upwards, requires energy from some source.  For instance, if the money was in the money bag and it was floatable, rising water levels could elevate the money bag but not move it up the beach past the water's edge.  However, it is very unlikely that either Cooper's body or the money bag were floatable by the time the Spring water runoff started.

Consequently, the movement of the money found at Tina Bar has to be downwards, or towards the river water or a lower level while in the river water itself, even as it travels downstream.  This is simply a case of the money moving towards a lower energy position.

In reality, the only reasonable explanation for the fragments to be at a greater depth than the money bundles is that "somebody", maybe some government agency or the Fazio family, dumped a lot of sand on the beach and money after it had arrived and then used a grader or tractor to "shape" the Tina Bar beach.  This would presumably be after a high water level event that had reached the level of Cooper's body and washed it and/or the money bag downstream.  This could have happened while the water level was so high that the body or bag was still underwater and not noticed.

As the high water receded, the body and bag went on downstream while the bundles and fragments that came out of the bag was covered by the sand movement caused by the high water.  Then the addition of sand and other materials to repair the erosion would cover the bundles and fragments.  Perhaps an annual re-sanding and shaping of the beach by tractors or such would eventually result in much more sand covering the fragments than the bundles.

It would be desirable to have an answer to the relative heights above sea level of the bundles and the fragments.  My understanding is that the bundles were closer to the water when found and that the fragments were a bit higher up the beach and further away from the water.

And all of this sequence could have started with the Spring 1972 water runoff.  Also, it is unlikely that the erosion that would have occurred with the Spring 1980 runoff had been repaired in mid-February when the money was found.  Further, the bundles were found under only two or three inches of sand just above the water line and, presumably, the fragments were found at a deeper level under the sand and higher up the beach.

I think you may be vastly over complicating this.

I find it hard to believe money arrived on the bar, in the same location, by multiple events from some 'same source' over a long period of time. I favor a single deposition, due to one event? Time and circumstance then provides the total context found in 1980. That is why, frankly, the dredging explanation is so powerful. It has the potential of supplying the strata, fragments, and bundles we find in 1980 all separated by layers = time?   

Not so fast!  Everything I wrote above implied that the money, both bundles and fragments, could have arrived at Tina Bar at the same time.  And in doing so the bundles and fragments would have initially been on top of the sand, even if the sand itself was underwater at that time.

Let me point out again that one of the bundles Tom examined had many of the bills torn off close to one end.  And it gave every appearance that the bills had been "rotated" in that bundle, apparently due to the single rubber band with the bundle being loose (maybe from bills that had already been lost from that bundle).  This rotation could have occurred when the bottom bills lodged in the sand while under water and the water current then causing the top bills to rotate and eventually tear off at one end.

I think the deposition of the money at Tina Bar is a one time event and that the bundles and fragments ended up at different levels below the top of the sand due to the repeated  addition of more sand to repair the erosion problems.  That is, after the money arrived the sand at Tina Bar was repeatedly graded which action essentially "churned" the sand and there were no meaningful layers in it when Palmer and the FBI was there.

The next time you speak to DS, please ask him about this.  What was the relative height of the bundles and fragments with respect to each other, and also with respect to sea level and also with respect to the top of the sand?  We may be making a bigger deal out of the way the bundles and fragments got arranged in the sand than the circumstances require.   

Unless our esteemed researchers Smith & Cook have better information straight from the horses mouthes (SA Eng and Admiral Palmer) then I have to assume there was only one deposition of dredge debris at the Ingram site, or South close to it. There have been endless rumors that the Fazios did this or did that, put more sand on the bar than others knew about or was legal .... I dont know anything about all of that.

DS knows nothing about what dredge materials were placed on Tina Bar. DS never even read the socalled Palmer report! And why should he have? Dorwin's participation in the 'dig' was a one time thing - the same for the other agents there. Beyond that they never followed the case or were involved after the dig.

Maybe Galen Cook has the facts.

But, let's say you are correct. Multiple applications of material over the money say by the end of 1977 might account for the layers found by Palmer in 1980 - with erosion playing a role in between. It all depends on the average annual erosion rate from some start date until Feb of 1980. All I can say is it would be nice to have some actual facts to work with for a change. We dont even have precise locations where these deep fragments were found - at least I don't! Maybe Cook and Smith do! 

You are right.  Whatever the "Crime Scene Investigators" did, or didn't do, at Tina Bar in February 1980 would probably be used as an example of what not to do by CSI personnel in 2017. 

Galen and the Palmer Report

Galen asked me to post the following:

“Georger must have received the redacted version of the Palmer Report (FBI's 302 of Len Palmer). Palmer clearly states that the money found at Tena's Bar had been deposited there for a period between 9 months and 12 months previous to discovery. He does not offer an opinion as to how it ended up at the location it was found on 2/10/80. Dr. Palmer was a geologist with a specialty in 'shoreline process.' Erosion is one of several areas of study in shoreline process. I extensively interviewed Palmer's son, a professor at Stanford University as well as Palmer's widow, who allowed me access to Palmer's own files. Eng gave me the full 302 of Palmer, without redactions. It was the only 302 of it's kind taken and maintained by the FBI for professional reference to the money found at Tena's Bar. From all indications I've uncovered from Palmer's son and widow, Palmer maintained a good relationship with the FBI."

Okay, so we have variance in what Palmer said. I can live with that. Does it force us to throw everything else out the window? Not yet, imho.

Can anybody here tell me their personal opinions on how the money was degraded? So far the choices are physical, chemical and biological.  Physical as in the action of tumbling down the river; biological as in a microorganism or worm or beetle, etc.; chemical as in use your imagination. Aliens, maybe, for a fourth option.