There was also a high water mark of 21.5 feet on June 12, 1972 as measured near the Port of Vancouver - just 7 months after the hijacking.

Where do you get that from - I dont have that data going back to 72 ?

I would love to have any 1971-73 water data you have ?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Thats right - I had forgot about that...

Truth be told, we don't know at all when the money ended up in the water. It could have been 1972, could be 1974.

It could, in fact, be a year without flooding. Certainly, flooding makes the most sense, but we can envision scenarios in which the money entered the water and/or ended up on Tena Bar without the need for flood waters.

We know there are spring/summer diatoms on the money, but we don't know which spring, summer those diatoms were acquired. Perhaps the only way to make an educated guess is to observe the condition of the money and extrapolate how long it would take for the money to deteriorate to the condition it was found in.

I disagree.

The diatoms prove the money was submerged in Columbia River water in June. Now between November 1971 and February 1980, there were only two times when the river actually reached the money burial spot--June 1972 and June 1974. Therefore, the money would had to have been submerged during one of--or theoretically both--those Junes.

It seems all but certain that the money did not come to the river, rather it appears that the river came to the money.

A couple of things:

First, Tom's paper indicates that wave action could also be responsible for soaking the money. I have no knowledge of the wave action at Tena Bar specifically, but my observations of boats, barges, and pleasure craft operating close to shore creating high waves in other rivers and lakes leads me to believe that this is also possible along the Columbia.

Also, in the theory that you presented a few pages ago, you indicated that after Cooper "pulled the money from underwater" that the loose packets would be left behind. However, this doesn't seem like it would allow the packets to become immersed and fan out. To quote Tom:

"This study found diatoms on a recovered bill which indicates that the money was immersed before burial."

This means that the packets would have to be fully immersed and fanned out during the summer months to acquire diatoms on their interior. Unless I am misunderstanding, it doesn't seem like this is possible with your theory.

I think we're really getting caught in the weeds here.

The money getting soaked is not rocket science. If the bills are placed underwater they're going to get soaked. If you place a packet under a faucet it's going to get soaked. This is as easy to test as grabbing a packet of 100 $1 bills from the bank and throwing them in the tub.

Also, this fanning thing is getting out of hand too. Assuming the bills aren't squeezed with some great pressure whereby they can't separate at all, they're going to spread out enough to let water in between the bills once submerged. That's all it takes. The diatoms are the size of a blood cell.

Finally, for what it's worth, Tom tested 377's bill from a piece taken on the edge. Considering where the edge of 377's bill is relative to that of a newer bill completely intact, I'd say that it's about 1/5th of the way to the center.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

A couple of things:

First, Tom's paper indicates that wave action could also be responsible for soaking the money. I have no knowledge of the wave action at Tena Bar specifically, but my observations of boats, barges, and pleasure craft operating close to shore creating high waves in other rivers and lakes leads me to believe that this is also possible along the Columbia.

Also, in the theory that you presented a few pages ago, you indicated that after Cooper "pulled the money from underwater" that the loose packets would be left behind. However, this doesn't seem like it would allow the packets to become immersed and fan out. To quote Tom:

"This study found diatoms on a recovered bill which indicates that the money was immersed before burial."

This means that the packets would have to be fully immersed and fanned out during the summer months to acquire diatoms on their interior. Unless I am misunderstanding, it doesn't seem like this is possible with your theory.

I think we're really getting caught in the weeds here.

The money getting soaked is not rocket science. If the bills are placed underwater they're going to get soaked. If you place a packet under a faucet it's going to get soaked. This is as easy to test as grabbing a packet of 100 $1 bills from the bank and throwing them in the tub.

Also, this fanning thing is getting out of hand too. Assuming the bills aren't squeezed with some great pressure whereby they can't separate at all, they're going to spread out enough to let water in between the bills once submerged. That's all it takes. The diatoms are the size of a blood cell.

Finally, for what it's worth, Tom tested 377's bill from a piece taken on the edge. Considering where the edge of 377's bill is relative to that of a newer bill completely intact, I'd say that it's about 1/5th of the way to the center.

You might be quite right. I'd like to see Tom weigh in here.

Appreciate the suggestions, gentlemen, but as much as I'd love to wash my feet in the waters of the mighty Columbia, that's an impossibility for me at the moment. Also, I'm merely repeating what Tom Kaye, a very smart man, said about Tena Bar in his own paper. So, if you have an issue with "wave action" at Tena Bar, you can take it up with him.

Houston, we have a problem.  Not all money packaging theories are equal when it comes to Kaye's "fanning out" theory, if fanning out was how diatoms entered the bundles of bills. Different packaging models have different results when it comes to fanning out. Let's review the competing money packaging theories and what they mean.

How the money was packed:
FBI: The boy turned up three bundles of money wrapped with rubber bands, which was a short distance below the top surface of the sand. …  The money was badly decomposed and was held together with rubber bands which were so old they crumbled away immediately upon handling.

Carr:  Bundles of approx 100 bills each. Each bundle wrapped with one or more rubber bands. No paper straps were used due to security concerns and time constraints. The Ingrams saw no trace of paper straps (5 interviews on this issue alone).

Kaye:  Uses Carr’s configuration. Time and simplicity and security were factors so bank employee elected to skip paper straps. Ingrams confirmed no evidence of paper straps.

Flyjack:  ‘Packets’ of approx 100 bills each, each packet bound with a paper strap, Three packets were assembled together and wrapped with one or more rubber bands making a “bundle”. Paper straps dissolved according to FJ. Based on FJ’s reading of 302’s and newspaper clippings.

Ulis:  Refuses to define what he means by “packet”.  Adopts Kaye’s ‘fanned out’ theory. 
 
Discussion:   Car/Kaye bundles are thinner, more limber with respect to gravity, and fan out differently than FJ packaging. The Carr/Kaye model is based on actual conversations with the bank employee who packaged the money for delivery to the plane. FJ's theory is based on his interpretation of words FJ has found in 302s and newspaper clippings. FJ's terminology is unique and means different things. FJ claims his paper straps were never seen because they dissolved. FJ says Carr "got it wrong". FJ has no explanation for how and why Carr and his interviews 'got it wrong'!   Ulis has adopted FJ's terminology but refuses to tell us what his word "packet" means! The different models of packaging present a different mass and resistance to gravity and "fan out" differently. Everyone is assuming diatoms entered the Cooper money package because bills fanned out in water.

I'll speak for myself thank you very much.

There is nothing that I have read that contradicts the belief that Cooper was provided packets of cash--each packet contained 100 $20 bills--bound by a rubberband with no identify bank information. Simple as that.

I do not believe that any number of these packets were clumped together to form what I refer to as a brick. That said, the sole reference concerning varied sizing of packets, or whatever, to make them appear hastily collected for the benefit of DBC makes no sense and strikes me as an error.

Again, for those with a stick up their ass, mistakes exist all over the place in these files. So if someone wants to hang their hat on some outlier description of something, well then have at it and enjoy the ride.