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.
I think you have built a false narrative here. I dont think anyone here wants to have to spend the time unraveling your assertions - you seem to be the latest-greatest and have a lot of social support regardless of the merit of your claims so I see this as a nearly hopeless cause, a kind of social media manifest destiny unfolding, until you are replaced by the next latest-greatest whatever ..... in the DB Cooper Vortex.
1. In your narrative was the Ingram money covered or not when found? I think you have basically suggested it was not covered but just sitting on the top of sand waiting for a small kid to find it? Other reports say under 2-3 inches or sand. T Kaye says: "While scooping out the sand for a fire pit, he uncovered three bundles of decomposed cash." so Kaye's claim is the bills were buried or at least covered with sand. What is your exact claim?
2. You keep using the term "self burying". What do you mean by that phrase?
3. You say the Ingram find was 'a long long long way' from dredging spoils. You say 400 feet! That is a little more than a football field. At the rate of flow you gave for the river (2 fps) 400 feet is only 200 seconds distance. Given that we are talking weeks, months, and possibly years ... 200 seconds is nothing!
4. You say there is no strong or fast current right next to the beach. Bruce Smith says that is not true. He has tried to swim off of Tina Bar. Others including fishermen say the same thing. Who is correct? You or them?
5. As you know there are artifacts buried under the sand at Tina or Tena Bar. How is it these artifacts can and are buried under sand but you say "money is not self burying"?
6. You mention the speed of current at different places in the river off Tina Bar. Have you considered the notion of "force" ... volume of water x velocity? The Columbia is a massive river generating a lot of force. It move huge trees or and off sand bars. You leave the impression that water running over Tina Bar has practically no 'force' or velocity associated with it, but then you say erosion at Tina Bar is massive and fast. Isn't that a contradiction in your narratives?
Poll