I find it disturbing and disappointing how many errors the FBI made just related to the money find.

Specifically, the FBI states that the September 6, 1974 photo shows the dredge spoils and identifies the money find spot. However, the September 29, 1974 picture also depicts a spot--presumably the money find spot. In reality, the FBI is identifying two separate spots in these two photos.

But here's the kicker: Neither spot is correct. The actual spot is about 200 feet north.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The recent files should finally put to rest the notion that bills were found 3 feet deep. Palmer clearly states that all of the money found was within the top 6" to 8" layer. Big surprise. Also, to the extent that the newspaper reporting is accurate, the rest of the bill debris was found within a "3 foot radius" of the original money find spot. Again, big surprise.

No 3-feet deep bills. No "wide and deep shard field."

Finally, we now know that Palmer's identified "clay layer" was not the 1974 dredge. Rather, it is a natural layer that runs the length of the beach. In other words, the money did not arrive after 1974. In fact, the money arrived almost immediately after the skyjacking and rotted away--rubber bands intact--for 8 years.

An excellent assumption is that the money was at Tina Bar no later than the 1972 spring flooding.  That means within about six months of the hijacking at the absolute latest.

I think it's safe to say that the three individual packets of money did not arrive on Tena Bar--60 feet from the water's edge--via the river. Moreover, that they did not self-bury themselves on Tena Bar for 8 years much as a piece of metal is capable of doing.

If you accept these parameters, there are very few legitimate options left.

We're about 10,000 posts into the Tena Bar discussion, why haven't we found a sedimentary expert yet to comment? Are there simply no river geologists around anymore?

This is where I think the Palmer Report got it wrong.

First, Palmer identifies a clay layer which he thinks is likely from the 1974 dredge. Also, that the top of this clay “1974 dredge” layer is apparently a couple of feet below the surface of the beach in 1980—5½ years after the August 1974 dredge. Moreover, that the layer itself is between 2 and 4 feet deep.

Well, this would mean that the level of the money find spot would have to have been at least 4 feet lower—and likely more—than it was in February 1980. Is this believable?

Second, given that the beach has been under a constant state of erosion since the 1974 dredge, how is it that approximately 2 feet of sand built up on top of the dredge in 5½ years? It’s impossible. The beach has been eroding, not building up.

Forty years later Mother Nature has uncovered the entire beach for quite a distance and we can now identify the clay “1974 dredge” layer as a natural layer that has been there all along—not just since August 1974. This fact alone destroys the foundation of the Palmer Report.

Third, Palmer refers to two layers of sand on top of the clay layer. He refers to the “upper sand layer” which he describes as 6”-8” deep and containing “soda pop cans and other debris, which were not severely damaged or rusted.” Then Palmer describes a “post dredging sand layer” of unknown depth containing “older soda pop cans, rusted nails and spikes, and other rusted artifacts, which were in a much more deteriorated condition.”

Note everything Palmer references is heavy and rusted and made of metal. Nothing like paper or cotton is referenced. Doesn’t it make sense that heavier objects would tend to sink deeper over time? Doesn’t it make sense that metal objects that are two feet down would have been buried longer than items that are four inches down? This is common sense.

Palmer also suggests the money likely arrived on Tena Bar within two or three months of the money find. When questioned about the fact the rubber bands were still intact Palmer stated, “The condition of the rubber bands would tend to lend credence to the assumption that the money had been at the location where found for a longer period of time.” Nonetheless, Palmer still believed the money had arrived within a year based upon the aforementioned clay “1974 dredge” layer—which we now know to have been misidentified.

This is a significant example of how Palmer and the FBI got it wrong in a very fundamental and critical manner. Indeed, believing the Palmer Report “hook, line and sinker” put the truth out of reach for 25 years. It wasn’t until Tom and the Cooper Research Team discovered the truth of the clay layer that the truth of when and how the money arrived at Tena Bar was put within reach.

I had lunch with Tom Kaye yesterday. We talked a lot about the money find and Tena Bar. Tom believes, as do I, that the money could not have arrived at Tena Bar via water. More to the point, that it was delivered and buried at Tena Bar by “living” intervention. Meaning, either Cooper, another person, or an animal brought the money to Tena Bar and buried it. It did not arrive and self-bury by natural means.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is where I think the Palmer Report got it wrong.

First, Palmer identifies a clay layer which he thinks is likely from the 1974 dredge. Also, that the top of this clay “1974 dredge” layer is apparently a couple of feet below the surface of the beach in 1980—5½ years after the August 1974 dredge. Moreover, that the layer itself is between 2 and 4 feet deep.

Well, this would mean that the level of the money find spot would have to have been at least 4 feet lower—and likely more—than it was in February 1980. Is this believable?

Second, given that the beach has been under a constant state of erosion since the 1974 dredge, how is it that approximately 2 feet of sand built up on top of the dredge in 5½ years? It’s impossible. The beach has been eroding, not building up.

Forty years later Mother Nature has uncovered the entire beach for quite a distance and we can now identify the clay “1974 dredge” layer as a natural layer that has been there all along—not just since August 1974. This fact alone destroys the foundation of the Palmer Report.

Third, Palmer refers to two layers of sand on top of the clay layer. He refers to the “upper sand layer” which he describes as 6”-8” deep and containing “soda pop cans and other debris, which were not severely damaged or rusted.” Then Palmer describes a “post dredging sand layer” of unknown depth containing “older soda pop cans, rusted nails and spikes, and other rusted artifacts, which were in a much more deteriorated condition.”

Note everything Palmer references is heavy and rusted and made of metal. Nothing like paper or cotton is referenced. Doesn’t it make sense that heavier objects would tend to sink deeper over time? Doesn’t it make sense that metal objects that are two feet down would have been buried longer than items that are four inches down? This is common sense.

Palmer also suggests the money likely arrived on Tena Bar within two or three months of the money find. When questioned about the fact the rubber bands were still intact Palmer stated, “The condition of the rubber bands would tend to lend credence to the assumption that the money had been at the location where found for a longer period of time.” Nonetheless, Palmer still believed the money had arrived within a year based upon the aforementioned clay “1974 dredge” layer—which we now know to have been misidentified.

This is a significant example of how Palmer and the FBI got it wrong in a very fundamental and critical manner. Indeed, believing the Palmer Report “hook, line and sinker” put the truth out of reach for 25 years. It wasn’t until Tom and the Cooper Research Team discovered the truth of the clay layer that the truth of when and how the money arrived at Tena Bar was put within reach.

I had lunch with Tom Kaye yesterday. We talked a lot about the money find and Tena Bar. Tom believes, as do I, that the money could not have arrived at Tena Bar via water. More to the point, that it was delivered and buried at Tena Bar by “living” intervention. Meaning, either Cooper, another person, or an animal brought the money to Tena Bar and buried it. It did not arrive and self-bury by natural means.

It did not arrive and self-bury by natural means.

Neither you or Tom or anyone else did any tests to attach a date to when the money was buried at Tina or Tena Bar.
Those tests were routinely being used clear back in 1971! Those tests started clear back in the 1940s with nuclear testing.

I am tired of sermons by experts quoting the Palmer report. I want some data for a change!   

There is no substitute for real facts!

Keep in mind that the spring floods move a lot of real estate around in that area.

And when Georger mentions nuclear testing, keep in mind that the Hanford Nuclear Site drains into the Columbia River which joins with the Snake River at Pasco.  Who knows what Hanford was putting into the Columbia.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is where I think the Palmer Report got it wrong.

First, Palmer identifies a clay layer which he thinks is likely from the 1974 dredge. Also, that the top of this clay “1974 dredge” layer is apparently a couple of feet below the surface of the beach in 1980—5½ years after the August 1974 dredge. Moreover, that the layer itself is between 2 and 4 feet deep.

Well, this would mean that the level of the money find spot would have to have been at least 4 feet lower—and likely more—than it was in February 1980. Is this believable?

Second, given that the beach has been under a constant state of erosion since the 1974 dredge, how is it that approximately 2 feet of sand built up on top of the dredge in 5½ years? It’s impossible. The beach has been eroding, not building up.

Forty years later Mother Nature has uncovered the entire beach for quite a distance and we can now identify the clay “1974 dredge” layer as a natural layer that has been there all along—not just since August 1974. This fact alone destroys the foundation of the Palmer Report.

Third, Palmer refers to two layers of sand on top of the clay layer. He refers to the “upper sand layer” which he describes as 6”-8” deep and containing “soda pop cans and other debris, which were not severely damaged or rusted.” Then Palmer describes a “post dredging sand layer” of unknown depth containing “older soda pop cans, rusted nails and spikes, and other rusted artifacts, which were in a much more deteriorated condition.”

Note everything Palmer references is heavy and rusted and made of metal. Nothing like paper or cotton is referenced. Doesn’t it make sense that heavier objects would tend to sink deeper over time? Doesn’t it make sense that metal objects that are two feet down would have been buried longer than items that are four inches down? This is common sense.

Palmer also suggests the money likely arrived on Tena Bar within two or three months of the money find. When questioned about the fact the rubber bands were still intact Palmer stated, “The condition of the rubber bands would tend to lend credence to the assumption that the money had been at the location where found for a longer period of time.” Nonetheless, Palmer still believed the money had arrived within a year based upon the aforementioned clay “1974 dredge” layer—which we now know to have been misidentified.

This is a significant example of how Palmer and the FBI got it wrong in a very fundamental and critical manner. Indeed, believing the Palmer Report “hook, line and sinker” put the truth out of reach for 25 years. It wasn’t until Tom and the Cooper Research Team discovered the truth of the clay layer that the truth of when and how the money arrived at Tena Bar was put within reach.

I had lunch with Tom Kaye yesterday. We talked a lot about the money find and Tena Bar. Tom believes, as do I, that the money could not have arrived at Tena Bar via water. More to the point, that it was delivered and buried at Tena Bar by “living” intervention. Meaning, either Cooper, another person, or an animal brought the money to Tena Bar and buried it. It did not arrive and self-bury by natural means.

It did not arrive and self-bury by natural means.

Neither you or Tom or anyone else did any tests to attach a date to when the money was buried at Tina or Tena Bar.
Those tests were routinely being used clear back in 1971! Those tests started clear back in the 1940s with nuclear testing.

I am tired of sermons by experts quoting the Palmer report. I want some data for a change!   

There is no substitute for real facts!

Keep in mind that the spring floods move a lot of real estate around in that area.

And when Georger mentions nuclear testing, keep in mind that the Hanford Nuclear Site drains into the Columbia River which joins with the Snake River at Pasco.  Who knows what Hanford was putting into the Columbia.

Im not talking about Hanford at all.

This is where I think the Palmer Report got it wrong.

First, Palmer identifies a clay layer which he thinks is likely from the 1974 dredge. Also, that the top of this clay “1974 dredge” layer is apparently a couple of feet below the surface of the beach in 1980—5½ years after the August 1974 dredge. Moreover, that the layer itself is between 2 and 4 feet deep.

Well, this would mean that the level of the money find spot would have to have been at least 4 feet lower—and likely more—than it was in February 1980. Is this believable?

Second, given that the beach has been under a constant state of erosion since the 1974 dredge, how is it that approximately 2 feet of sand built up on top of the dredge in 5½ years? It’s impossible. The beach has been eroding, not building up.

Forty years later Mother Nature has uncovered the entire beach for quite a distance and we can now identify the clay “1974 dredge” layer as a natural layer that has been there all along—not just since August 1974. This fact alone destroys the foundation of the Palmer Report.

Third, Palmer refers to two layers of sand on top of the clay layer. He refers to the “upper sand layer” which he describes as 6”-8” deep and containing “soda pop cans and other debris, which were not severely damaged or rusted.” Then Palmer describes a “post dredging sand layer” of unknown depth containing “older soda pop cans, rusted nails and spikes, and other rusted artifacts, which were in a much more deteriorated condition.”

Note everything Palmer references is heavy and rusted and made of metal. Nothing like paper or cotton is referenced. Doesn’t it make sense that heavier objects would tend to sink deeper over time? Doesn’t it make sense that metal objects that are two feet down would have been buried longer than items that are four inches down? This is common sense.

Palmer also suggests the money likely arrived on Tena Bar within two or three months of the money find. When questioned about the fact the rubber bands were still intact Palmer stated, “The condition of the rubber bands would tend to lend credence to the assumption that the money had been at the location where found for a longer period of time.” Nonetheless, Palmer still believed the money had arrived within a year based upon the aforementioned clay “1974 dredge” layer—which we now know to have been misidentified.

This is a significant example of how Palmer and the FBI got it wrong in a very fundamental and critical manner. Indeed, believing the Palmer Report “hook, line and sinker” put the truth out of reach for 25 years. It wasn’t until Tom and the Cooper Research Team discovered the truth of the clay layer that the truth of when and how the money arrived at Tena Bar was put within reach.

I had lunch with Tom Kaye yesterday. We talked a lot about the money find and Tena Bar. Tom believes, as do I, that the money could not have arrived at Tena Bar via water. More to the point, that it was delivered and buried at Tena Bar by “living” intervention. Meaning, either Cooper, another person, or an animal brought the money to Tena Bar and buried it. It did not arrive and self-bury by natural means.

I dont find Palmer saying any of your quotations attributed to him. Why is that?

I cant find Palmer ever saying “upper sand layer”  or   â€śpost dredging sand layer”, in the Palmer report. Palmer's words are "upper active layer" and "cross bedded coarse and medium sand layer".

Since around 2014 i have stated several things about Tbar. This includes pictures, video etc.

#1 Tom was in the wrong location.
#2. If the sand was only spread 50 yards then Palmer misidentified the layers. more confirmation of this came from speaking with TK.

I also mentioned numerous times of how erosion couldn't have buried the dredge layer or the fact of it being there years later. 50 yards is nowhere near the find. The dredge layer should of been gone by 1980.

Typing on phone is bullshit