I finally got an opportunity to carefully and thoughtfully read Tom’s paper this morning. I immediately followed that up by calling him and discussing a few questions and getting some clarifications.

Here are my thoughts:

To begin with, this is exciting. The paper was well written and well documented.

It also points—quite convincingly—to contact between the Cooper bill and Columbia River water during the May-June time frame, and that time frame alone. The bill was not exposed to Columbia River water during any other time of the year.

Now, considering the manner in which the bills were found—specifically, three packets immediately adjacent to each other, 50 feet from the water’s edge and at a point approximately 10 feet above the normal Columbia River water level—I am still convinced that the only possible way for the money to have arrived at Tena Bar was via human intervention.

Therefore, factoring in Tom’s work and my belief that the money was buried by human intervention, I look at Tom’s discovery as helping answer a question that I’ve pondered many times. Specifically: When was the buried ransom retrieved from Tena Bar?

Let me explain.

I firmly believe that Cooper landed north of Tena Bar and buried the ransom at Tena Bar before walking into town (Vancouver). I also believe that Cooper retrieved the ransom at some point, however, have never had any ideas at what point.

I now think it is entirely possible that the ransom stayed buried at Tena Bar for several months while Cooper observed the activity of the FBI and others in law enforcement. Perhaps, Cooper was a suspect as part of this FBI activity—as a Boeing employee or former Boeing employee—and therefore decided to lay low and not immediately retrieve the ransom. After all, if Cooper was at all concerned about being observed by the authorities, the last thing he would want to do is direct the authorities to the ransom by way of attempting to retrieve it.

However, something changed in June of 1972.

It would have been in June of 1972 that Cooper may have learned that the Columbia River was at near-record water levels. Indeed, June of 1972 was one of only two high water events between 1971 and 1980. This was one of only two times that the river level actually reached the money burial site which, as previously mentioned, was 50 feet from the water’s edge and at an elevation about 10 feet above the normal surface level of the river.

With this in mind, I propose that Cooper recognized the need to retrieve the ransom so as to prevent it from being swept out to sea. Moreover, I propose that Cooper made his way to Tena Bar and retrieved the ransom while it was either a few inches under water—or very near the edge of the river. This would explain how it is that the three packets left behind were exposed to the Columbia River during the diatom bloom, and only during that diatom bloom.

To reiterate, the importance of Tom’s paper in my mind is that it helps answer a question I’ve had for some time—that is: When did Cooper retrieve the buried ransom from Tena Bar?

I now think the answer to that question is June of 1972.

Cheers!

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I think the reference is just the sand and nothing with the sand...he states in the report having no idea how the money got there and said the same to me on the phone today...

He means 'sand moves with water flow'.  The water pressure is south to north there. When the tide rises the flow (water pressure) is south to north. The Columbia moves south to north as it goes by Tina Bar... hydrologists say it is not uncommon for sands to be moved hundreds/thousands of feet at that location; south to north.

Georger, Hold everything here.  The tidal influence is given elsewhere as between 1 and 2 feet daily and comes from the Pacific which is about 90 or so river miles from Tina Bar.  You state, "When the tide rises the flow (water pressure) is south to north."  In reality, the tidal influence is from the north (downstream) to the south (upstream) at Tina Bar.  An increasing tidal influences would slightly reduce the river flow.  As the tide recedes, it is moving from south (upstream) to the north (downstream) and slightly increasing the river flow.  Neither the increase or decrease of the river flow should be of any particular significance in this instance.

In any event, the money find location is about 10 feet above the nominal river surface level and tidal influences would not normally reach it.  This is probably also true about where the dredged spoils were dumped in 1974.

It appears that only during high water events, such as flooding during the spring snow melt run off, would the river water have any influence on either the money find location or the dredged spoils location.

Yours is a good question. I have similar questions. Tom references this issue in his paper.

Why are you telling me?

You need to be talking to Tom Kaye! Tom Kaye is the one who just published a paper on this matter . . .

I finally got an opportunity to carefully and thoughtfully read Tom’s paper this morning. I immediately followed that up by calling him and discussing a few questions and getting some clarifications.

Here are my thoughts:

To begin with, this is exciting. The paper was well written and well documented.

It also points—quite convincingly—to contact between the Cooper bill and Columbia River water during the May-June time frame, and that time frame alone. The bill was not exposed to Columbia River water during any other time of the year.

Now, considering the manner in which the bills were found—specifically, three packets immediately adjacent to each other, 50 feet from the water’s edge and at a point approximately 10 feet above the normal Columbia River water level—I am still convinced that the only possible way for the money to have arrived at Tena Bar was via human intervention.

Therefore, factoring in Tom’s work and my belief that the money was buried by human intervention, I look at Tom’s discovery as helping answer a question that I’ve pondered many times. Specifically: When was the buried ransom retrieved from Tena Bar?

Let me explain.

I firmly believe that Cooper landed north of Tena Bar and buried the ransom at Tena Bar before walking into town (Vancouver). I also believe that Cooper retrieved the ransom at some point, however, have never had any ideas at what point.

I now think it is entirely possible that the ransom stayed buried at Tena Bar for several months while Cooper observed the activity of the FBI and others in law enforcement. Perhaps, Cooper was a suspect as part of this FBI activity—as a Boeing employee or former Boeing employee—and therefore decided to lay low and not immediately retrieve the ransom. After all, if Cooper was at all concerned about being observed by the authorities, the last thing he would want to do is direct the authorities to the ransom by way of attempting to retrieve it.

However, something changed in June of 1972.

It would have been in June of 1972 that Cooper may have learned that the Columbia River was at near-record water levels. Indeed, June of 1972 was one of only two high water events between 1971 and 1980. This was one of only two times that the river level actually reached the money burial site which, as previously mentioned, was 50 feet from the water’s edge and at an elevation about 10 feet above the normal surface level of the river.

With this in mind, I propose that Cooper recognized the need to retrieve the ransom so as to prevent it from being swept out to sea. Moreover, I propose that Cooper made his way to Tena Bar and retrieved the ransom while it was either a few inches under water—or very near the edge of the river. This would explain how it is that the three packets left behind were exposed to the Columbia River during the diatom bloom, and only during that diatom bloom.

To reiterate, the importance of Tom’s paper in my mind is that it helps answer a question I’ve had for some time—that is: When did Cooper retrieve the buried ransom from Tena Bar?

I now think the answer to that question is June of 1972.

Cheers!

EU,

Tom Kaye’s paper completely eliminates your above scenario:

“Finding large diatoms on the bills rules out all theories involving human burial of dry bundles. This discounts the theories that the flight path was more westerly than the FBI chart shows and Cooper landed near and made his way along the Columbia River where he decided to bury some of the cash.”

The reason that your scenario is invalid is because any money buried in sand wouldn’t have the large diatoms - even if they and the sand were underwater. The money needs to be fanned out to acquire those diatoms. Money can’t fan if it is buried in sand.

For your scenario to be true, it would require Cooper to bury the money in November, return in June and submerge the cash in the Columbia for a few weeks, and then re-bury it and then dig it up again. Obviously that makes no sense.

The major takeaway from Tom’s study is that the cash had to be underwater in the Columbia, fanned out, in order for those diatoms to get on the bills.

Yes, I’m sure about that.

I quoted Tom’s own paper. I read Tom’s paper three times. I re-read the first paragraph of Tom’s paper before I wrote this. It categorically eliminates your theory.

If Tom told you something privately that contradicts his own findings, then that’s something Tom has to speak for.

And not to be an ass, but if you’re unwilling to listen to criticisms of your ideas, then don’t publicly post them.

And not to be an ass, but if you’re unwilling to listen to criticisms of your ideas, then don’t publicly post them.

The operative word in my post above is "uninformed."

Enough said.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I finally got an opportunity to carefully and thoughtfully read Tom’s paper this morning. I immediately followed that up by calling him and discussing a few questions and getting some clarifications.

Here are my thoughts:

To begin with, this is exciting. The paper was well written and well documented.

It also points—quite convincingly—to contact between the Cooper bill and Columbia River water during the May-June time frame, and that time frame alone. The bill was not exposed to Columbia River water during any other time of the year.

Now, considering the manner in which the bills were found—specifically, three packets immediately adjacent to each other, 50 feet from the water’s edge and at a point approximately 10 feet above the normal Columbia River water level—I am still convinced that the only possible way for the money to have arrived at Tena Bar was via human intervention.

Therefore, factoring in Tom’s work and my belief that the money was buried by human intervention, I look at Tom’s discovery as helping answer a question that I’ve pondered many times. Specifically: When was the buried ransom retrieved from Tena Bar?

Let me explain.

I firmly believe that Cooper landed north of Tena Bar and buried the ransom at Tena Bar before walking into town (Vancouver). I also believe that Cooper retrieved the ransom at some point, however, have never had any ideas at what point.

I now think it is entirely possible that the ransom stayed buried at Tena Bar for several months while Cooper observed the activity of the FBI and others in law enforcement. Perhaps, Cooper was a suspect as part of this FBI activity—as a Boeing employee or former Boeing employee—and therefore decided to lay low and not immediately retrieve the ransom. After all, if Cooper was at all concerned about being observed by the authorities, the last thing he would want to do is direct the authorities to the ransom by way of attempting to retrieve it.

However, something changed in June of 1972.

It would have been in June of 1972 that Cooper may have learned that the Columbia River was at near-record water levels. Indeed, June of 1972 was one of only two high water events between 1971 and 1980. This was one of only two times that the river level actually reached the money burial site which, as previously mentioned, was 50 feet from the water’s edge and at an elevation about 10 feet above the normal surface level of the river.

With this in mind, I propose that Cooper recognized the need to retrieve the ransom so as to prevent it from being swept out to sea. Moreover, I propose that Cooper made his way to Tena Bar and retrieved the ransom while it was either a few inches under water—or very near the edge of the river. This would explain how it is that the three packets left behind were exposed to the Columbia River during the diatom bloom, and only during that diatom bloom.

To reiterate, the importance of Tom’s paper in my mind is that it helps answer a question I’ve had for some time—that is: When did Cooper retrieve the buried ransom from Tena Bar?

I now think the answer to that question is June of 1972.

Cheers!

EU,

Tom Kaye’s paper completely eliminates your above scenario:

“Finding large diatoms on the bills rules out all theories involving human burial of dry bundles. This discounts the theories that the flight path was more westerly than the FBI chart shows and Cooper landed near and made his way along the Columbia River where he decided to bury some of the cash.”

The reason that your scenario is invalid is because any money buried in sand wouldn’t have the large diatoms - even if they and the sand were underwater. The money needs to be fanned out to acquire those diatoms. Money can’t fan if it is buried in sand.

For your scenario to be true, it would require Cooper to bury the money in November, return in June and submerge the cash in the Columbia for a few weeks, and then re-bury it and then dig it up again. Obviously that makes no sense.

The major takeaway from Tom’s study is that the cash had to be underwater in the Columbia, fanned out, in order for those diatoms to get on the bills.

Have you considered the possibility that the cash was briefly underwater when it moved from Cooper's impact point to the location where it was found?  Also, Tom Kaye has an illustration on his site that suggests to me that the bills were underwater long enough for some of the bills in one bundle to be "torqued" and part of the bill broken off.  This could have happened during a high water event that left the bills under the sand when the water receded.

All,
So to be perfectly clear...  Yes I did talk to EU, he has a theory that Cooper retrieved the money he had buried dry, while the water was at flood level in June. Presumably Cooper waded into the water to dig the money out. Several bundles in that endeavor were uncovered, got wet and then were overlooked and got reburied. So from that description of the theory, the bills would have been exposed to the river above the sand and could presumably get diatoms on them.

I generally do not argue with theories unless they have zero grains of truth. The diatom research has sent us ALL scratching our heads trying to come up with a scenario that fits the data. I think everyone needs to get behind some theory and champion it no matter what the level of plausibility. Think tanks work best when everyone throws all their ideas on the table and then the group tries to put the pieces together in the best way. I suggest everyone mirror EU and come up with SOMETHING and throw it on the table. We can sort it out down the road.

Tom Kaye