You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

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€œpost dredging sand layer”, in the Palmer report. Palmer's words are "upper active layer" and "cross bedded coarse and medium sand layer".

These quotes are from the Palmer 302 starting on page 369.

But, who gives a $#!+? The facts related to these layers are all that matter regardless of what the layers are called.

Again, how does a beach undergoing constant erosion manage to build up 2 1/2 feet of sand on top of the misidentified clay "1974 dredge" layer over 5 1/2 years?

The answer: It doesn't. Period. That's why it's called erosion.

Also, the clay" 1974 dredge" layer Palmer identified was NOT from the 1974 dredge or any other dredge. Period. It's a natural clay layer that runs the length of the beach.

Continuing on...the money was rotting with rubber bands still intact which immediately crumbled to the touch. Yet we are to believe that these super rubber bands maintained their integrity for 8 YEARS before being washed onto Tena Bar, 60 feet from the water's edge, then in two months completely deteriorate? This is mindless.

Finally, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how packets of paper currency bury themselves (plural) like pieces of metal. Or how three individual packets manage to stay together during the apparently violent ride from 10K feet up, to LaCenter, to Tena Bar without human intervention.

The answer: Again, they don't. Period.

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

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€œpost dredging sand layer”, in the Palmer report. Palmer's words are "upper active layer" and "cross bedded coarse and medium sand layer".

These quotes are from the Palmer 302 starting on page 369.

But, who gives a $#!+? The facts related to these layers are all that matter regardless of what the layers are called.

Again, how does a beach undergoing constant erosion manage to build up 2 1/2 feet of sand on top of the misidentified clay "1974 dredge" layer over 5 1/2 years?

The answer: It doesn't. Period. That's why it's called erosion.

Also, the clay" 1974 dredge" layer Palmer identified was NOT from the 1974 dredge or any other dredge. Period. It's a natural clay layer that runs the length of the beach.

Continuing on...the money was rotting with rubber bands still intact which immediately crumbled to the touch. Yet we are to believe that these super rubber bands maintained their integrity for 8 YEARS before being washed onto Tena Bar, 60 feet from the water's edge, then in two months completely deteriorate? This is mindless.

Finally, I'm still waiting for someone to explain how packets of paper currency bury themselves (plural) like pieces of metal. Or how three individual packets manage to stay together during the apparently violent ride from 10K feet up, to LaCenter, to Tena Bar without human intervention.

The answer: Again, they don't. Period.

These quotes are from the Palmer 302 starting on page 369.

But, who gives a $#!+? The facts related to these layers are all that matter regardless of what the layers are called.

That is why Im saying these quotes are NOT Palmer's words from the Palmer report. The 302s are NOT the Palmer report.    Some agents' words talking/writing about a thing in his own words are not Palmer speaking! Who gives a damn? I do! If you want to know what Palmer said and thought to quote Palmer get the Palmer report. Its purdy damned simpul!

Flyjack is doing the same damned thing. If he finds a 302 where somebody says "the money was packed in marshmellows", FJ turns around and tells us: "the money was packed in marshmellows" and FJ says we are morons for not accepting it. You sir are doing the exact same thing!

This is elementary.

Only 14 pages in pdf #43 overlap with the Palmer report or the Ingram money find chronology. Nothing in pdf 43 IS the Palmer report! If you had "The Transcript" you would know that. 

Why are you here? The preach and sermonize as some superior intellect with your hair on fire, or learn ?

As for your strange theory about 'money cant self bury on Tina Bar' -  the original reports were that the money was found under 2-3 inches of sand. And Palmer's upper active layer, as you know?, is 0-8 inches deep, Palmer says. That has been standard doctrine here since Cooper forums were founded in 2000! It is now 2019.

If you want to revise the whole DB Cooper story, go back and start by revising Euclid and arithmetic. And then explain to the world why of all the things that get buried on shorelines, the one thing that can't ever get buried is 'paper bills'! Talk to a few fishermen and salvage people and have them explain it to you.

I dont know what else to say here -

RULE OF THUMB:

When debating the money find on Tena Bar, if one has to resort to bringing up Euclid, they've lost the argument. After all, it accomplishes nothing more than attempting to confuse the matter.

ON THE OTHER HAND:

If one cares to reference a quote that brings clarity and truth to the matter, may I suggest a personal favorite by Arthur Conan Doyle who stated...

Once you eliminate the impossible,
whatever remains,
no matter how improbable,
must be the truth.

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

A text copy of D.B. Cooper Part 43 of 43-426, is now available. This is the interview of FBI geologist Chris Fiedler who conducted a sand analysis on the Ingram bills, shortly after the Ingrams turned in their bills, when the bills were still wet! This is the only detailed money analysis document known to date which details both sand analysis and fingerprint analysis, conducted by the FBI Laboratory on the Ingram bills.

- - -
FBI GEOLOGIST FAVORS WASHOUGAL RIVER LANDING FOR DB
By Myron Struck – States News Service – Washington

Did DB Cooper land in or near the Washougal River rather than the Lewis River?
In the personal opinion of the Chief FBI geologist who worked on the case,  DB Cooper may have landed in the Washougal River, not near the Lewis River where it had been presumed that he came to Earth – before about $5800 in compressed wet and eroded money was found along the banks of the Columbia River in February 1980, upstream from the Lewis

The Washougal River scenario is the private view of geologist Chris Fiedler, who handled the soil analysis on the money, and not part of the agency’s official report to the Seattle Field Office coordinating the investigation.
Still, it seems to be the only clue that might help the investigation the FBI was able to glean from a recent analysis of the bills in its Washington DC research area known as The Laboratory.
The official reports says little was found on the wad of money. The basis for the new information is Fiedler’s research of the sand particles found among the bills and his discussions with federal geologists in the field. He has concluded that the ‘range of sand particles’ found among the bills is similar to sediment found along the Columbia and a number of its tributaries.

Fiedler’s opinion has been disavowed firmly by his mineralogy division section chief.
“He could have landed in the Columbia River”, Fiedler said, “Or he could have come down in the Washougal River. The latter is where my training and instincts tell me is more likely, based on the data I have available.”
The sand tests involve little in the way or complicated equipment – only a simple microscope and some geological reference materials that document the characteristics of sand particles. Those found in the bills were rounded, worn, and considered to have been exposed to exceptional wear and tear. “What we didn’t find is clay or other substances,” Fiedler said. “These substances could have indicated the money originally had been buried in dirt.” 
When the money was sent back to the laboratory for examination, most of the bills were compressed together, but a number could be distinguished easily. Field agents had determined that the serial numbers matched those of the $200,000 Cooper skyjacking money.

The money was also routed to the Laboratory’s documents division, the lead division handling the case.
First, the money was dried out, using some 23-cent blotter, a pair of tweezers, some heat, and a careful hand. Individual bills were placed in cellophane envelopes and sent to the Latent Fingerprints Division. The sand particles associated with the bills were routed to the mineralogy section where Fiedler made his analysis.

The most impressive analysis was the use of a $36,000 experimental laser beam process to detect fingerprints. The process was created accidentally by Xerox of Canada. When it tried using laser beams to photocopy documents, fingerprints would show up on the paper, making the process unworkable. The substance the laser detects from fingertip contact is unknown The device, however, has been successfully used in detecting fingerprints that were not visible through conventional chemical and powder detection.

These conventional chemical tests were also applied to the DB Cooper money seeking grease or oil fingerprint stains and amino acid fingerprint signatures.

All four systems turned up nothing. The money had been exposed to the waters of the Columbia River too long. It was impossible to detect any fingerprint traces, even those of Brian Ingram, the eight year old boy who found the money on Tena Bar near Vancouver.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A text copy of D.B. Cooper Part 43 of 43-426, is now available. This is the interview of FBI geologist Chris Fiedler who conducted a sand analysis on the Ingram bills, shortly after the Ingrams turned in their bills, when the bills were still wet! This is the only detailed money analysis document known to date which details both sand analysis and fingerprint analysis, conducted by the FBI Laboratory on the Ingram bills.

- - -
FBI GEOLOGIST FAVORS WASHOUGAL RIVER LANDING FOR DB
By Myron Struck – States News Service – Washington

Did DB Cooper land in or near the Washougal River rather than the Lewis River?
In the personal opinion of the Chief FBI geologist who worked on the case,  DB Cooper may have landed in the Washougal River, not near the Lewis River where it had been presumed that he came to Earth – before about $5800 in compressed wet and eroded money was found along the banks of the Columbia River in February 1980, upstream from the Lewis

The Washougal River scenario is the private view of geologist Chris Fiedler, who handled the soil analysis on the money, and not part of the agency’s official report to the Seattle Field Office coordinating the investigation.
Still, it seems to be the only clue that might help the investigation the FBI was able to glean from a recent analysis of the bills in its Washington DC research area known as The Laboratory.
The official reports says little was found on the wad of money. The basis for the new information is Fiedler’s research of the sand particles found among the bills and his discussions with federal geologists in the field. He has concluded that the ‘range of sand particles’ found among the bills is similar to sediment found along the Columbia and a number of its tributaries.

Fiedler’s opinion has been disavowed firmly by his mineralogy division section chief.
“He could have landed in the Columbia River”, Fiedler said, “Or he could have come down in the Washougal River. The latter is where my training and instincts tell me is more likely, based on the data I have available.”
The sand tests involve little in the way or complicated equipment – only a simple microscope and some geological reference materials that document the characteristics of sand particles. Those found in the bills were rounded, worn, and considered to have been exposed to exceptional wear and tear. “What we didn’t find is clay or other substances,” Fiedler said. “These substances could have indicated the money originally had been buried in dirt.” 
When the money was sent back to the laboratory for examination, most of the bills were compressed together, but a number could be distinguished easily. Field agents had determined that the serial numbers matched those of the $200,000 Cooper skyjacking money.

The money was also routed to the Laboratory’s documents division, the lead division handling the case.
First, the money was dried out, using some 23-cent blotter, a pair of tweezers, some heat, and a careful hand. Individual bills were placed in cellophane envelopes and sent to the Latent Fingerprints Division. The sand particles associated with the bills were routed to the mineralogy section where Fiedler made his analysis.

The most impressive analysis was the use of a $36,000 experimental laser beam process to detect fingerprints. The process was created accidentally by Xerox of Canada. When it tried using laser beams to photocopy documents, fingerprints would show up on the paper, making the process unworkable. The substance the laser detects from fingertip contact is unknown The device, however, has been successfully used in detecting fingerprints that were not visible through conventional chemical and powder detection.

These conventional chemical tests were also applied to the DB Cooper money seeking grease or oil fingerprint stains and amino acid fingerprint signatures.

All four systems turned up nothing. The money had been exposed to the waters of the Columbia River too long. It was impossible to detect any fingerprint traces, even those of Brian Ingram, the eight year old boy who found the money on Tena Bar near Vancouver.

It's been a while since I looked at the Washougal theory.  Do the believers in that theory have a landing spot (that tributary is 20 miles long isn't it?). And if they have a spot, have they tied that into the flight path, as in do any of the flight paths line up with a Washougal landing, or does the Washougal theory base itself on they money only?

Shutter (if I may speak for him) and I are saying that the four layers identified by Palmer have been there all along. More to the point, the top two layers did not magically build up on top of the misidentified clay "1974 dredge" layer (#3). Tena Bar is in a constant state of erosion. It always has been. Look at pictures of the beach from 1955 and you'll see what I'm talking about.

That said, the dredge spoils mitigated erosion on the beach. With respect to where the money was found, the dredge spoils did not place new sand on the beach. The money find spot is too far away--400 feet.

Importantly, the dredge spoils were not actually deposited upon Tena Bar. Rather, the spoils were deposited above the beach near the retention pond, at which point the slurry would run back down into the Columbia. After the slurry would dry, the Fazios would then spread them 50 yards in each direction on the beach. Richard Fazio showed me this himself. The September 6, 1974 high altitude image of Tena Bar shows this perfectly.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You keep noting the high erosion rate at Tena Bar, and at every shoreline along the Columbia. True.

Where does that eroded material go?  That material generally flows north from its original location(s), in the same direction as the flow of the river. No surprise. The dominant force present in the Columbia system is the flow of the river water. No surprise. The river is "a river"! The river flows: from south to north.

The Ingram find was found NORTH of both 1974 dredging spoil sites. In the same direction the river flows.

The river sand does not flow north on or near the beach. Rather, it primarily flows back into the Columbia River channel.

The center of the river is approximately 40 feet deep. The shoreline next to Tena Bar is only a few feet deep as far as 50 feet or so from the water's edge. The river then gets deep quickly as you enter the channel which is nearer the center of the river.

What this means is that the center of the Columbia lumbers along in a northerly direction at a few feet per second. On the other hand, the water near the shore is quite placid. In fact, water movement is unrecognizable near the shoreline until a ship moves by. At those times the action of the water is one that essentially strips beach sand directly into the river.

Anecdotally, I have not seen any activity whereby the river is noticeably moving north close to the beach--unless, of course, a ship goes by or the wind is blowing in that direction.

Therefore, the notion of paper currency self-burying itself 60-feet from the water's edge some 400 feet north of the 1974 dredge spoils is not believable.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

How high was the "60-feet from the water's edge" money find location above the river water surface level when you recently visited it?

Meyer Louie and I were told a few years ago that the river water level during a typical spring run off could reach to within a few feet of the Tina Bar gate.  Did you notice a railroad tie embedded in the west bank of the containment pond and about 20 feet horizontally from the gate?  The individual that Meyer and I talked to said that he had seen the river water as high as that railroad tie.

The point is that the money find location could easily be under 10 to 20 feet of water during a normal spring run off.

I would estimate that the level of the river when I was there about 10 days ago was approximately 6 feet BELOW the level of the Tena Bar money find spot as it existed in 1980.

I will state unequivocally that the Tina Bar sign almost never has water reach it. Richard Fazio told me that the water reached near the sign one time only in 1996. The water level crested at just over 27 feet. The previous time it reached that level was 40 years earlier in 1956.

The money find spot as it existed in 1980 would almost never be under 10 feet of water. From 1971 to 1980 there were two times--1972 and 1974--where water covered the spot with a few feet of water.