Author Topic: Tena Bar Money Find (Read 1558948 times)

Robert99 · « **Reply #4905 on:** August 05, 2020, 04:36:40 PM »

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
I think this is an interesting theory. In other words, the bills weren't introduced to the water. The water was introduced to the bills. The bills were exposed to the Columbia water, but were not "in" the river in the traditional sense.

It accounts for the lack of other seasonal diatoms and helps explain why the bundles were all together when found. And the high-water events both happening in June align with the May-June bloom of those particular diatoms.

What is your take on the "shards" or fragments of bills that were later found under and near the bundles following the Ingram find? The fragments are what seem to trip up a lot of solid Tina Bar theories.
Your description of the water being introduced to the bills, as opposed to the other way around, is perfect.

Regarding a shard field: There was no shard field.

I know Bruce has mentioned a "wide and deep shard field," that said, as I've looked into it and discussed it with Richard Fazio I have found no evidence that this is true. Sure, there were some fragments found around the immediate vicinity of the money find, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

There is actual video made by a Portland TV station of a "fragment" being dug out of the sand and handed to an FBI Agent who then walked it over to the cameraman and showed it to the camera at very close range.

In his book, FBI Agent Mike McPheters, who was one of the first agents at Tina Bar, describes digging up bill fragments "up to two inches wide" and containing serial numbers. He bagged those fragment and wrote up his find. He does not mention "shards" or a "shard field".

If "shards" actually existed, they would have required water action to create a "field".

Stop cherry picking single incidents and tell the rest of the story? How many fragments - found at what depths? Explain them ?

There is no cherry picking involved. I simply stated what McPheters wrote in his four pages that described his involvement with the Cooper matter and Tina Bar. That is all there is to his story. He did what he was supposed to do that day. Unlike yourself, McPheters didn't try to make a career out of the hijacking.

Chaucer · « **Reply #4906 on:** August 05, 2020, 07:07:26 PM »

Since Tom encouraged all of us to put forth theories that could account for his findings, I’ve decided to share mine. Unlike some others here, I welcome correction and criticism. Please fact check me to death.

Cooper ends up in the water of the Columbia. The flight path - similar to the placard find - is slightly west (Perhaps 2 or 2.5 miles west of the FBI flight path all the way down), so he lands somewhere in the vincinity of the I-5 bridge/Tomahawk Island area) The money is still tightly packed into the bag and secured to Cooper’s body. Overnight, in the cover of darkness it floats upstream toward Caterpillar Island and Tena Bar.

Due to the tightly packed bag and lack of full submersion in the river, the number of large diatoms is few and only on the bills nearest the inside of the bag. At some point in its journey, it washes up on the riverside, obscured by snow and other debris where it remains until the the winter thaw raises the water level in May.

After six months the body, the bag, and the strings that hold it all together have deteriorated to a point where packets of money are now falling out. As May turns into June, and the flood waters rise to historic levels., the rest of the money disappears downstream, but a few packets ($5800 worth) wash up on the banks of Tena Bar. While mostly protected from the winter diatoms by the bag, the turbidity of the water and the interaction with the sand remove what few diatoms remain from the colder months. Now, as they float fanned out in the early summer flood water of 1972, they acquire new summer diatoms. The flood waters recede in July and a shallow layer of silt covers the money, and even more sand will cover the money in August of 1974 when dredge material will be pushed over it.

TL;DR: Cooper splashes into the Columbia at or just slightly to the west of where the FBI flight path shows. The tightly packed bag, floating partly out of the water on the body of DBC, protect the cash from acquiring winter diatoms. It spends the winter months washed up on a remote riverbank somewhere between Tena Bar and Tomahawk Island, until the flood waters deliver it to Tena Bar, opening the decayed bag and exposing the found bundles to summer diatoms while simultaneously ridding it of the few winter diatoms that remained.

I’m sure there are flaws with this theory which I am more than happy to have pointed out.

Tom Kaye · « **Reply #4907 on:** August 05, 2020, 07:09:47 PM »

Thinking about EU's theory here is a modified version I came up with. Let's call it TK1 since it is likely to get changed down the line.

The bundled money ends up on the surface of the sand on Tena Bar (pick your favorite method to get it there I don't care). It is November the day of or shortly after the jump (again pick your favorite argument). It is winter and the beach is not well traveled so the money which presumably is not sitting out in the open, is near some vegetation that obscures it from direct view. It sits there for the winter and in June when the flood occurs , it fans out, gets the load of diatoms, then corralled by the vegetation, gets buried in the sand from the flood stage.

For this to work it needs two caveats:
The bills had to be sitting on top of the sand very close to the burial point otherwise they would have been separated.
The flood had to cause enough sand movement at the top of the beach to initiate burial.

A precise money location and aerial view of the vegetation on the beach from that period would be needed to examine if this theory has any merit. If you like my location for the money find or EU's I believe both are situated in a vegetated area. A down side is that Brian Ingram would not have dug a fire pit under a bush, so in 1980 the vegetation on that exact spot was gone. We would have to see the vegetation extent in 1971 compared to 1980.

This is the only reasonable way so far I can think of to explain the data.

Tom Kaye

***EDIT**** while I was typing this I see Chaucer posted something similar.

Chaucer · « **Reply #4908 on:** August 05, 2020, 07:14:49 PM »

Tom,

Do you think it is plausible for the money, if tightly packed into the bag, would be protected from acquiring winter diatoms while traveling from area of the I-5 bridge to Tena Bar? And would interaction with the sand “clean” any remaining winter diatoms?

EU · « **Reply #4909 on:** August 05, 2020, 09:01:05 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thinking about EU's theory here is a modified version I came up with. Let's call it TK1 since it is likely to get changed down the line.

The bundled money ends up on the surface of the sand on Tena Bar (pick your favorite method to get it there I don't care). It is November the day of or shortly after the jump (again pick your favorite argument). It is winter and the beach is not well traveled so the money which presumably is not sitting out in the open, is near some vegetation that obscures it from direct view. It sits there for the winter and in June when the flood occurs , it fans out, gets the load of diatoms, then corralled by the vegetation, gets buried in the sand from the flood stage.

For this to work it needs two caveats:
The bills had to be sitting on top of the sand very close to the burial point otherwise they would have been separated.
The flood had to cause enough sand movement at the top of the beach to initiate burial.

A precise money location and aerial view of the vegetation on the beach from that period would be needed to examine if this theory has any merit. If you like my location for the money find or EU's I believe both are situated in a vegetated area. A down side is that Brian Ingram would not have dug a fire pit under a bush, so in 1980 the vegetation on that exact spot was gone. We would have to see the vegetation extent in 1971 compared to 1980.

This is the only reasonable way so far I can think of to explain the data.

Tom Kaye

***EDIT**** while I was typing this I see Chaucer posted something similar.

The problem as I see it Tom--or for that matter any self-burial scenario which I consider impossible for three separate packets of paper currency like this--is that the process requires a constant back and forth of wave agitation along the tide line which is abrasive in nature and would shatter the A formosa diatoms in the mix. And this, as you noted, doesn't jive with the A. Formosa diatoms that you observed on 377's bill which were largely "intact."

Chaucer · « **Reply #4910 on:** August 05, 2020, 09:15:50 PM »

EU,

I would think that the actions of digging and pulling out of water saturated sand would be as disruptive to diatoms as wave action. Also, if the cash bundles remained inside the bag, they would be protected against both diatom infiltration and diatom disruptive action.

Still, as Tom is the expert, I’d like to hear his take.

18C · « **Reply #4911 on:** August 05, 2020, 11:12:38 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

R99,

I’m coming to that conclusion as well. I read Tom’s paper again.

The conclusion is that from November of 1971 to late spring/early summer of 1972, the money was dry - presumably sitting on the ground somewhere near the water, perhaps covered in snow and/or debris. Then in late spring/early summer of 1972, it moved to the water of the Columbia and very short after (I’m assuming no more than a couple of months, maybe less) it ended up on the shore of Tena Bar where it was soon buried under sand by natural processes.

The question remains: where did it begin its journey once it ended up on the ground in November of 1971? Was it Caterpillar Island? Or further upstream? Or somewhere even more out there along the watershed?

What Tom’s paper rules out:

1. Cooper landed safely and then buried the money.
2. Cooper landed in the river along with the money and it was washed downstream where it ended up on Tena Bar.

Sequence of events: The money was on land. Six months later it was in the water. A few weeks later it was back on land where it remained until found in 1980.

Taking into account what Tom’s paper rules out, I assume the theory then becomes DBC lost hold of the money on his way down and it literally rained money?

The obvious question of course is, what became of the rest of the money?

Why was the short stack Brian Ingram dug out of the sand the only money that didn't perish courtesy of nature?

Robert99 · « **Reply #4912 on:** August 06, 2020, 12:06:13 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Tom,

Do you think it is plausible for the money, if tightly packed into the bag, would be protected from acquiring winter diatoms while traveling from area of the I-5 bridge to Tena Bar? And would interaction with the sand “clean” any remaining winter diatoms?

Chaucer, Let me jump in here also. It is approximately 10 statute miles by river from the I-5 bridge to Tina Bar. Whether floating or rolling on the river bottom, the money bag would have ended up on the west side of the Columbia River when it got to the Tina Bar area.

If floating, it would have continued on downstream past Tina Bar. If on the bottom, it would be in the shipping channel by the time it got to the Tina Bar area and would continued on downstream as well, unless it snagged on something on the bottom. The money would have to stay on the bottom until the dredging in 1974 for this story to work and it obviously didn't.

Tom Kaye · « **Reply #4913 on:** August 06, 2020, 12:47:58 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Tom,

Do you think it is plausible for the money, if tightly packed into the bag, would be protected from acquiring winter diatoms while traveling from area of the I-5 bridge to Tena Bar? And would interaction with the sand “clean” any remaining winter diatoms?

Lots of "ifs" there. Starting with there is no current evidence for a bag, if there was a bag and the material was woven tight, and the closure was sealed as tight as the material weave, then it might prevent diatom infiltration. If it was a bank bag with a tied off top, I am not confident that diatoms would be prevented from getting in there. If the bank bag was stuffed tight and the bills were not allowed to fan out, that might be the best prevention. I am still not comfortable with invoking a scenario where there is no evidence of critical pieces.

I am not sure what you mean by the sand cleaning the diatoms but I can't think of any scenario where microscopic particles would be extracted from the bills.

Tom Kaye

Robert99 · « **Reply #4914 on:** August 06, 2020, 01:00:40 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Thinking about EU's theory here is a modified version I came up with. Let's call it TK1 since it is likely to get changed down the line.

The bundled money ends up on the surface of the sand on Tena Bar (pick your favorite method to get it there I don't care). It is November the day of or shortly after the jump (again pick your favorite argument). It is winter and the beach is not well traveled so the money which presumably is not sitting out in the open, is near some vegetation that obscures it from direct view. It sits there for the winter and in June when the flood occurs , it fans out, gets the load of diatoms, then corralled by the vegetation, gets buried in the sand from the flood stage.

For this to work it needs two caveats:
The bills had to be sitting on top of the sand very close to the burial point otherwise they would have been separated.
The flood had to cause enough sand movement at the top of the beach to initiate burial.

A precise money location and aerial view of the vegetation on the beach from that period would be needed to examine if this theory has any merit. If you like my location for the money find or EU's I believe both are situated in a vegetated area. A down side is that Brian Ingram would not have dug a fire pit under a bush, so in 1980 the vegetation on that exact spot was gone. We would have to see the vegetation extent in 1971 compared to 1980.

This is the only reasonable way so far I can think of to explain the data.

Tom Kaye

***EDIT**** while I was typing this I see Chaucer posted something similar.

Mistake! Before moving on to discuss anyone's theory, I think you need to focus on your data first. What the "data" is or is not saying, before someone tries to amend your data.

1. What do you think your data says and does not say ?
2. What are the limitations of your data, as you see it ?
3. What flight path are you assuming is involved ?

Let's stop there. I think it is very important that you stick to your research data and discuss it, before moving on or amending anything to accommodate someone's else's THEORY! I think most people want your data first and need to absorb it first vs. someone else's THEORY!

Stand on your own work and don't let anyone sway you in any direction you are not comfortable going in.

Let me jump into this one as well.

TK addressed both numbers 1 and 2 above in his article and does not assume ANY flight path. TK discusses his data, sticks with it, and I see no effort at all to accommodate anyone's theory.

Georger, you appear to be trying to jump in front of TK's work and direct where you want it to go and especially not to go. What are your qualifications for pontificating in the matter? How about listing some of your research papers to illustrate your point? Preparing an index for another person's work doesn't qualify.

georger · « **Reply #4915 on:** August 06, 2020, 01:15:07 AM »

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
Thinking about EU's theory here is a modified version I came up with. Let's call it TK1 since it is likely to get changed down the line.

The bundled money ends up on the surface of the sand on Tena Bar (pick your favorite method to get it there I don't care). It is November the day of or shortly after the jump (again pick your favorite argument). It is winter and the beach is not well traveled so the money which presumably is not sitting out in the open, is near some vegetation that obscures it from direct view. It sits there for the winter and in June when the flood occurs , it fans out, gets the load of diatoms, then corralled by the vegetation, gets buried in the sand from the flood stage.

For this to work it needs two caveats:
The bills had to be sitting on top of the sand very close to the burial point otherwise they would have been separated.
The flood had to cause enough sand movement at the top of the beach to initiate burial.

A precise money location and aerial view of the vegetation on the beach from that period would be needed to examine if this theory has any merit. If you like my location for the money find or EU's I believe both are situated in a vegetated area. A down side is that Brian Ingram would not have dug a fire pit under a bush, so in 1980 the vegetation on that exact spot was gone. We would have to see the vegetation extent in 1971 compared to 1980.

This is the only reasonable way so far I can think of to explain the data.

Tom Kaye

***EDIT**** while I was typing this I see Chaucer posted something similar.

Mistake! Before moving on to discuss anyone's theory, I think you need to focus on your data first. What the "data" is or is not saying, before someone tries to amend your data.

1. What do you think your data says and does not say ?
2. What are the limitations of your data, as you see it ?
3. What flight path are you assuming is involved ?

Let's stop there. I think it is very important that you stick to your research data and discuss it, before moving on or amending anything to accommodate someone's else's THEORY! I think most people want your data first and need to absorb it first vs. someone else's THEORY!

Stand on your own work and don't let anyone sway you in any direction you are not comfortable going in.

Let me jump into this one as well.

TK addressed both numbers 1 and 2 above in his article and does not assume ANY flight path. TK discusses his data, sticks with it, and I see no effort at all to accommodate anyone's theory.

Georger, you appear to be trying to jump in front of TK's work and direct where you want it to go and especially not to go. What are your qualifications for pontificating in the matter? How about listing some of your research papers to illustrate your point? Preparing an index for another person's work doesn't qualify.

Follow the bouncing ball. What are your qualifications for pontificating in the matter?

I asked Tom because it's his work. Are you suggesting people ask you instead of asking authors of their own work? Stop the bullshit.

Robert99 · « **Reply #4916 on:** August 06, 2020, 01:41:30 AM »

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
Thinking about EU's theory here is a modified version I came up with. Let's call it TK1 since it is likely to get changed down the line.

The bundled money ends up on the surface of the sand on Tena Bar (pick your favorite method to get it there I don't care). It is November the day of or shortly after the jump (again pick your favorite argument). It is winter and the beach is not well traveled so the money which presumably is not sitting out in the open, is near some vegetation that obscures it from direct view. It sits there for the winter and in June when the flood occurs , it fans out, gets the load of diatoms, then corralled by the vegetation, gets buried in the sand from the flood stage.

For this to work it needs two caveats:
The bills had to be sitting on top of the sand very close to the burial point otherwise they would have been separated.
The flood had to cause enough sand movement at the top of the beach to initiate burial.

A precise money location and aerial view of the vegetation on the beach from that period would be needed to examine if this theory has any merit. If you like my location for the money find or EU's I believe both are situated in a vegetated area. A down side is that Brian Ingram would not have dug a fire pit under a bush, so in 1980 the vegetation on that exact spot was gone. We would have to see the vegetation extent in 1971 compared to 1980.

This is the only reasonable way so far I can think of to explain the data.

Tom Kaye

***EDIT**** while I was typing this I see Chaucer posted something similar.

Mistake! Before moving on to discuss anyone's theory, I think you need to focus on your data first. What the "data" is or is not saying, before someone tries to amend your data.

1. What do you think your data says and does not say ?
2. What are the limitations of your data, as you see it ?
3. What flight path are you assuming is involved ?

Let's stop there. I think it is very important that you stick to your research data and discuss it, before moving on or amending anything to accommodate someone's else's THEORY! I think most people want your data first and need to absorb it first vs. someone else's THEORY!

Stand on your own work and don't let anyone sway you in any direction you are not comfortable going in.

Let me jump into this one as well.

TK addressed both numbers 1 and 2 above in his article and does not assume ANY flight path. TK discusses his data, sticks with it, and I see no effort at all to accommodate anyone's theory.

Georger, you appear to be trying to jump in front of TK's work and direct where you want it to go and especially not to go. What are your qualifications for pontificating in the matter? How about listing some of your research papers to illustrate your point? Preparing an index for another person's work doesn't qualify.

Follow the bouncing ball. What are your qualifications for pontificating in the matter?

I asked Tom because it's his work. Are you suggesting people ask you instead of asking authors of their own work? Stop the bullshit.

You didn't "ask" TK anything, you "told" him. I imagine that TK has a publication history that is several times larger and more professional than your own, assuming you have one in the first place.

georger · « **Reply #4917 on:** August 06, 2020, 01:59:50 AM »

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
Thinking about EU's theory here is a modified version I came up with. Let's call it TK1 since it is likely to get changed down the line.

The bundled money ends up on the surface of the sand on Tena Bar (pick your favorite method to get it there I don't care). It is November the day of or shortly after the jump (again pick your favorite argument). It is winter and the beach is not well traveled so the money which presumably is not sitting out in the open, is near some vegetation that obscures it from direct view. It sits there for the winter and in June when the flood occurs , it fans out, gets the load of diatoms, then corralled by the vegetation, gets buried in the sand from the flood stage.

For this to work it needs two caveats:
The bills had to be sitting on top of the sand very close to the burial point otherwise they would have been separated.
The flood had to cause enough sand movement at the top of the beach to initiate burial.

A precise money location and aerial view of the vegetation on the beach from that period would be needed to examine if this theory has any merit. If you like my location for the money find or EU's I believe both are situated in a vegetated area. A down side is that Brian Ingram would not have dug a fire pit under a bush, so in 1980 the vegetation on that exact spot was gone. We would have to see the vegetation extent in 1971 compared to 1980.

This is the only reasonable way so far I can think of to explain the data.

Tom Kaye

***EDIT**** while I was typing this I see Chaucer posted something similar.

Mistake! Before moving on to discuss anyone's theory, I think you need to focus on your data first. What the "data" is or is not saying, before someone tries to amend your data.

1. What do you think your data says and does not say ?
2. What are the limitations of your data, as you see it ?
3. What flight path are you assuming is involved ?

Let's stop there. I think it is very important that you stick to your research data and discuss it, before moving on or amending anything to accommodate someone's else's THEORY! I think most people want your data first and need to absorb it first vs. someone else's THEORY!

Stand on your own work and don't let anyone sway you in any direction you are not comfortable going in.

Let me jump into this one as well.

TK addressed both numbers 1 and 2 above in his article and does not assume ANY flight path. TK discusses his data, sticks with it, and I see no effort at all to accommodate anyone's theory.

Georger, you appear to be trying to jump in front of TK's work and direct where you want it to go and especially not to go. What are your qualifications for pontificating in the matter? How about listing some of your research papers to illustrate your point? Preparing an index for another person's work doesn't qualify.

Follow the bouncing ball. What are your qualifications for pontificating in the matter?

I asked Tom because it's his work. Are you suggesting people ask you instead of asking authors of their own work? Stop the bullshit.

You didn't "ask" TK anything, you "told" him. I imagine that TK has a publication history that is several times larger and more professional than your own, assuming you have one in the first place.

I removed the two posts because of your accusation. Are you happy now? Tom is an adult. He can listen to whomever he wants!

Chaucer · « **Reply #4918 on:** August 06, 2020, 02:41:29 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Tom,

Do you think it is plausible for the money, if tightly packed into the bag, would be protected from acquiring winter diatoms while traveling from area of the I-5 bridge to Tena Bar? And would interaction with the sand “clean” any remaining winter diatoms?

Chaucer, Let me jump in here also. It is approximately 10 statute miles by river from the I-5 bridge to Tina Bar. Whether floating or rolling on the river bottom, the money bag would have ended up on the west side of the Columbia River when it got to the Tina Bar area.

If floating, it would have continued on downstream past Tina Bar. If on the bottom, it would be in the shipping channel by the time it got to the Tina Bar area and would continued on downstream as well, unless it snagged on something on the bottom. The money would have to stay on the bottom until the dredging in 1974 for this story to work and it obviously didn't.

So, literally NO flotsam ends up on the east side of the Columbia at that part of the river, huh? Well, the perpetual debris pile on Tena Bar might disputable that claim.

Also, it seems that you are as defensive when people georget pushes back on your ideas as EU when I push back on his. I know I’m new here , but perhaps you guys should have both a thicker skin and a more open mind.

Who am I kidding? You both have too much hubris for that.

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #4919 on:** August 06, 2020, 04:48:45 AM »

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
I think this is an interesting theory. In other words, the bills weren't introduced to the water. The water was introduced to the bills. The bills were exposed to the Columbia water, but were not "in" the river in the traditional sense.

It accounts for the lack of other seasonal diatoms and helps explain why the bundles were all together when found. And the high-water events both happening in June align with the May-June bloom of those particular diatoms.

What is your take on the "shards" or fragments of bills that were later found under and near the bundles following the Ingram find? The fragments are what seem to trip up a lot of solid Tina Bar theories.
Your description of the water being introduced to the bills, as opposed to the other way around, is perfect.

Regarding a shard field: There was no shard field.

I know Bruce has mentioned a "wide and deep shard field," that said, as I've looked into it and discussed it with Richard Fazio I have found no evidence that this is true. Sure, there were some fragments found around the immediate vicinity of the money find, but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone.

There is actual video made by a Portland TV station of a "fragment" being dug out of the sand and handed to an FBI Agent who then walked it over to the cameraman and showed it to the camera at very close range.

In his book, FBI Agent Mike McPheters, who was one of the first agents at Tina Bar, describes digging up bill fragments "up to two inches wide" and containing serial numbers. He bagged those fragment and wrote up his find. He does not mention "shards" or a "shard field".

If "shards" actually existed, they would have required water action to create a "field".

So is the common belief that any fragments that were found were nothing more than just pieces of the 3 bundles that eroded off?

I've always wondered if the fragments came from Ingram's bundles or if the fragments came from additional bundles (that were not Ingram's).

If they came from Ingram's bundles, it makes things a lot simpler. If they came from other bundles or bills, it presents another layer of mystery. Is there any supporting evidence that the fragments came from Ingram's bills? (Like perhaps a serial number from the fragments matching up with one of the serial numbers from one of the bundles). Have any of the bill experiments or analysis found anything conclusive about the eroding of the bills and whether or not they would have produced fragments of that nature?

That's a good question, Raoul. I don't know, nor do I know anyone who does. Hmmmm, I really ought to head out to Montana and spend a few days talking to Dorwin.... He might know.

The bigger question is: where are these "bigger" shards. They weren't in Seattle when the CS was checking the evidence.

Poll

How did the money arrive on Tena Bar

Author Topic: Tena Bar Money Find (Read 1558948 times)

Robert99

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Chaucer

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Tom Kaye

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Chaucer

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

EU

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Chaucer

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

18C

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Robert99

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Tom Kaye

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Robert99

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

georger

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Robert99

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

georger

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Chaucer

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Tina Bar Money Find