I like it, too. I'm a firm believer in 1-in-a-million kinds of things. Like one person winning the lottery twice.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Of interest to me, and noteworthy as a Sheridan believer, the money find spot was near the base of a smaller tree...in his book, Sheridan talks about discarding the items he jumped with near the base of a tree. One of many similarities to the Cooper case and episodes in Sheridan's book.

The Ingram find is not near any tree. Two agents were asked questions today.

Interview Dorwin and Steve – 9/20/2018

(1)  The tide line at the beach was not in line with the Ingram find but lower than the Ingram find. All money fragments were not found along the tide line as per the Fazio doctrine mythology.

(2)  The lines we marked in the sand were about 20ft apart, stepped off by me.

(3) There were no obstructions at the Ingram find location. No trees there or nearby. There was a thicket and bushes to the left of the find location maybe eight feet away, but they didn’t interfere with digging at the find site. The trees at the Tina Bar location were some distance behind the Ingram find further up the incline. The Ingram find wasn’t below or near any tree.

(4) The 20ft segments were laid out to about 60 yards and the 60 yard line had nothing to do with finding or not finding fragments – it was an arbitrary distance marked for convenience. Later Palmer used that distance and location to dig his second comparison trench but digging activity in that area had nothing to do with finding fragments there. I don't recall that any fragments were found in that 60 yard grid. People did dig there but nothing I know of was found there.

(5) Were frags found only in an area within ten feet of the Ingram find: "Hell no! That's not true at all." My guess is most of the fragments were found in a large area starting above the Ingram find then 30-40ft either side of the Ingram find  almost down to the water’s edge. Everywhere we dug around the Ingram find we found fragments either near the surface or down to one or 2.5 feet. I think that’s where Himms gets his ‘fragments found at three feet deep’, from. Each agent was assigned a digging area and didn’t stray from his or her assigned area.

(6) Was there a pattern that emerged for the fragments being found?. Not really except for the large area Ive described - 30-40 feet each side of the Ingram find down almost to the water's edge. Fragments were being found with our raking just below the surface and deeper in the trenches we dug. We didnt map or record every fragment being found as an archaeologist would - we probably should have done that if we had had more time. One thing we did look for was a trail of fragments leading up to the Ingram find itself, but we didn't find a narrow trail of that kind. Clear out at the 60 yard zone I dont recall that the guys found any fragments at all. Its just my impression but I think we found more fragments on the downstream side of the Ingram find than on the right side of it. But, I can guarantee you that all of the fragments did not come from a 10 foot radius around the Ingram find. That's not true.       

(6) Could fragments have been moved on people’s shoes or blown into holes being dug? "NO! That’s crazy". People were assigned digging areas and didn’t stray out of their assigned areas. Reporters weren’t free to roam around. It was a fairly large space – we weren’t working shoulder to shoulder with a lot of traffic with people moving around at will. We were very sensitive to trying not to contaminate the area. That is “somebody’s imagination run amuck”.

(7) Did you encounter any cow manure: No.

Other questions were asked but …  will be posted at a later time.

 

Great information.  This interview, plus the footage posted by the news cameraman a while back, makes me lean towards the dredge theory.  I haven't heard another theory that comes close to explaining the condition and location of the money.  That, coupled with the "fact" that the 727 flew over the Tena Bar area or upstream within a few miles makes the dredge theory more likely.  One of the flight crew stated they were near Portland proper, which also puts the jump zone in that vicinity. 

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Of interest to me, and noteworthy as a Sheridan believer, the money find spot was near the base of a smaller tree...in his book, Sheridan talks about discarding the items he jumped with near the base of a tree. One of many similarities to the Cooper case and episodes in Sheridan's book.

The Ingram find is not near any tree. Two agents were asked questions today.

Interview Dorwin and Steve – 9/20/2018

(1)  The tide line at the beach was not in line with the Ingram find but lower than the Ingram find. All money fragments were not found along the tide line as per the Fazio doctrine mythology.

(2)  The lines we marked in the sand were about 20ft apart, stepped off by me.

(3) There were no obstructions at the Ingram find location. No trees there or nearby. There was a thicket and bushes to the left of the find location maybe eight feet away, but they didn’t interfere with digging at the find site. The trees at the Tina Bar location were some distance behind the Ingram find further up the incline. The Ingram find wasn’t below or near any tree.

(4) The 20ft segments were laid out to about 60 yards and the 60 yard line had nothing to do with finding or not finding fragments – it was an arbitrary distance marked for convenience. Later Palmer used that distance and location to dig his second comparison trench but digging activity in that area had nothing to do with finding fragments there. I don't recall that any fragments were found in that 60 yard grid. People did dig there but nothing I know of was found there.

(5) Were frags found only in an area within ten feet of the Ingram find: "Hell no! That's not true at all." My guess is most of the fragments were found in a large area starting above the Ingram find then 30-40ft either side of the Ingram find  almost down to the water’s edge. Everywhere we dug around the Ingram find we found fragments either near the surface or down to one or 2.5 feet. I think that’s where Himms gets his ‘fragments found at three feet deep’, from. Each agent was assigned a digging area and didn’t stray from his or her assigned area.

(6) Was there a pattern that emerged for the fragments being found?. Not really except for the large area Ive described - 30-40 feet each side of the Ingram find down almost to the water's edge. Fragments were being found with our raking just below the surface and deeper in the trenches we dug. We didnt map or record every fragment being found as an archaeologist would - we probably should have done that if we had had more time. One thing we did look for was a trail of fragments leading up to the Ingram find itself, but we didn't find a narrow trail of that kind. Clear out at the 60 yard zone I dont recall that the guys found any fragments at all. Its just my impression but I think we found more fragments on the downstream side of the Ingram find than on the right side of it. But, I can guarantee you that all of the fragments did not come from a 10 foot radius around the Ingram find. That's not true.       

(6) Could fragments have been moved on people’s shoes or blown into holes being dug? "NO! That’s crazy". People were assigned digging areas and didn’t stray out of their assigned areas. Reporters weren’t free to roam around. It was a fairly large space – we weren’t working shoulder to shoulder with a lot of traffic with people moving around at will. We were very sensitive to trying not to contaminate the area. That is “somebody’s imagination run amuck”.

(7) Did you encounter any cow manure: No.

Other questions were asked but …  will be posted at a later time.

 

Here are the problems I have with this account. According to Bruce's interview with Dorwin, he said the following:

1) The dredging equipment was still in the river at the time of the FBI dig. This is not accurate.

2) He stated that they actually found a significant portion of the attache case during the dig. I assume this is not accurate.

3) He stated that "it's been 40 years" and admitted that his memory may be flawed regarding some things.

Also, Dorwin was not involved in the digging with a shovel in hand. He was the PIO and was dealing with the multitude of media on hand.

Furthermore, the broad and deep shard field contradicts what both Richard and Al Fazio have said regarding the search.

Moreover, the TV news footage clearly shows the searchers in the same close area...in particular, red-plaid-shirt-guy who discovers a piece of the currency on camera about 12"-18" down.

I simply cannot accept Dorwin's version as gospel given the myriad problems with his account as noted above. Not to mention, it doesn't make sense. After all, satellite footage clearly shows the footprint of the dredge spreading from 1974 and it doesn't come close to the money find area. Also, if pieces were found three feet down this means that the thickness of the dredge spread at that point would have to be at least three feet deep--this after six years of dramatic erosion. This tells me the dredge spoil thickness would probably had to have been around five feet thick originally at this point--again, a point where satellite imagery clearly shows the dredge spreading never reached.

Didn't the Fazio's run heavy equipment up and down TBAR.. can't recall where I heard that?

If so, wouldn't that taint the shard distribution significance.

They did not run heavy equipment up and down the beach other than spreading the dredge spoils after being placed upon the beach (last time 1974) and digging trenches for the FBI during the dig.

One thing I should add to my above comments; A significant portion of the recovered bills are missing pieces. This mass of missing pieces would have to have been stripped away by wave activity or have simply rotted into nothingness. Wave activity obviously would spread these pieces along the beach and certainly bury many of them an inch or two down. Therefore, finding shards close to the surface over a broad area makes sense--even though Brian Ingram says they didn't find anything else along the beach even though they were looking.

If there actually was a wide (40 feet) and deep (3 feet+) shard field, I cannot explain how this could occur under any scenario. Even dredging wouldn't account for this unless the dredge spoils were literally spread 6 feet thick which contradicts everything written about the spreading process.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Of interest to me, and noteworthy as a Sheridan believer, the money find spot was near the base of a smaller tree...in his book, Sheridan talks about discarding the items he jumped with near the base of a tree. One of many similarities to the Cooper case and episodes in Sheridan's book.

The Ingram find is not near any tree. Two agents were asked questions today.

Interview Dorwin and Steve – 9/20/2018

(1)  The tide line at the beach was not in line with the Ingram find but lower than the Ingram find. All money fragments were not found along the tide line as per the Fazio doctrine mythology.

(2)  The lines we marked in the sand were about 20ft apart, stepped off by me.

(3) There were no obstructions at the Ingram find location. No trees there or nearby. There was a thicket and bushes to the left of the find location maybe eight feet away, but they didn’t interfere with digging at the find site. The trees at the Tina Bar location were some distance behind the Ingram find further up the incline. The Ingram find wasn’t below or near any tree.

(4) The 20ft segments were laid out to about 60 yards and the 60 yard line had nothing to do with finding or not finding fragments – it was an arbitrary distance marked for convenience. Later Palmer used that distance and location to dig his second comparison trench but digging activity in that area had nothing to do with finding fragments there. I don't recall that any fragments were found in that 60 yard grid. People did dig there but nothing I know of was found there.

(5) Were frags found only in an area within ten feet of the Ingram find: "Hell no! That's not true at all." My guess is most of the fragments were found in a large area starting above the Ingram find then 30-40ft either side of the Ingram find  almost down to the water’s edge. Everywhere we dug around the Ingram find we found fragments either near the surface or down to one or 2.5 feet. I think that’s where Himms gets his ‘fragments found at three feet deep’, from. Each agent was assigned a digging area and didn’t stray from his or her assigned area.

(6) Was there a pattern that emerged for the fragments being found?. Not really except for the large area Ive described - 30-40 feet each side of the Ingram find down almost to the water's edge. Fragments were being found with our raking just below the surface and deeper in the trenches we dug. We didnt map or record every fragment being found as an archaeologist would - we probably should have done that if we had had more time. One thing we did look for was a trail of fragments leading up to the Ingram find itself, but we didn't find a narrow trail of that kind. Clear out at the 60 yard zone I dont recall that the guys found any fragments at all. Its just my impression but I think we found more fragments on the downstream side of the Ingram find than on the right side of it. But, I can guarantee you that all of the fragments did not come from a 10 foot radius around the Ingram find. That's not true.       

(6) Could fragments have been moved on people’s shoes or blown into holes being dug? "NO! That’s crazy". People were assigned digging areas and didn’t stray out of their assigned areas. Reporters weren’t free to roam around. It was a fairly large space – we weren’t working shoulder to shoulder with a lot of traffic with people moving around at will. We were very sensitive to trying not to contaminate the area. That is “somebody’s imagination run amuck”.

(7) Did you encounter any cow manure: No.

Other questions were asked but …  will be posted at a later time.

 

Here are the problems I have with this account. According to Bruce's interview with Dorwin, he said the following:

1) The dredging equipment was still in the river at the time of the FBI dig. This is not accurate.

2) He stated that they actually found a significant portion of the attache case during the dig. I assume this is not accurate.

3) He stated that "it's been 40 years" and admitted that his memory may be flawed regarding some things.

Also, Dorwin was not involved in the digging with a shovel in hand. He was the PIO and was dealing with the multitude of media on hand.

Furthermore, the broad and deep shard field contradicts what both Richard and Al Fazio have said regarding the search.

Moreover, the TV news footage clearly shows the searchers in the same close area...in particular, red-plaid-shirt-guy who discovers a piece of the currency on camera about 12"-18" down.

I simply cannot accept Dorwin's version as gospel given the myriad problems with his account as noted above. Not to mention, it doesn't make sense. After all, satellite footage clearly shows the footprint of the dredge spreading from 1974 and it doesn't come close to the money find area. Also, if pieces were found three feet down this means that the thickness of the dredge spread at that point would have to be at least three feet deep--this after six years of dramatic erosion. This tells me the dredge spoil thickness would probably had to have been around five feet thick originally at this point--again, a point where satellite imagery clearly shows the dredge spreading never reached.

... never had a shovel in his hand? Interesting. You had better stick with Sheridan's account.

TK's theory outside the range...so TK was right and Palmer who was there is wrong? can you verify what layer Palmer and the engineer corps were looking at?

I thought rubber bands were around all 3 bundles, so how could they not find there way to the resting spot?

Simply put, I think Palmer was wrong and that Kaye is right. The following (blue text) is how Tom addresses some of this on the Citizen Sleuths' website.

The discovery of the natural clay layers suggests that Palmer misinterpreted the clay as man-made when it fact it was a natural part of the beach stratigraphy. Palmer working with limited information could not have interpreted the clay layers as a natural feature of the shoreline. The continuous erosion of the sand since 1980 to its current level, suggests that prior to 1974, the level of the beach was maintained by the addition of dredging sands. These sand deposits can be seen in subsequent years moving downstream with river flow along the sand bar. This further suggests that once the dredging sands were no longer replenishing the beach after 1974, natural erosion took place which eventually uncovered the Cooper Bills in 1980.

The FBI files stated that the dredge used in 1974 was 24 inches in diameter. This relatively small dredge would be virtually incapable of passing several bundles of bills through the system unharmed. When the bills were found, the rubber bands were brittle and crumbled off. In 1974 the rubber bands would have already been exposed to the elements for more than two years. The rubber band testing outlined elsewhere in this study indicates that after years of exposure, the bands would have long lost their ability to contain the bundles intact through a dredging operation.

The Palmer Report was based on the information available at that time. The new information now indicates that the dredging operation did not transport the bills from the bottom of the Columbia River but could have been a contributing factor to the bills staying buried until 1980. The information collected by the FBI, combined with the known positions of the dredge pipes, suggests that the money find was not within the area covered by the dredging material. This again indicates that the money burial was not due to dredging operations. The Palmer Report, while perfectly credible at that time, does not remain viable given this new data and no longer supports the Washougal Wash-Down Theory.

The new information now indicates that the dredging operation did not transport the bills from the bottom of the Columbia River but could have been a contributing factor to the bills staying buried until 1980. The information collected by the FBI, combined with the known positions of the dredge pipes, suggests that the money find was not within the area covered by the dredging material. This again indicates that the money burial was not due to dredging operations. .

Tom's statement is a blatant contradiction: How?

(a) The information collected by the FBI, combined with the known positions of the dredge pipes, suggests that the money find was not within the area covered by the dredging material.

(b) The new information now indicates that the dredging operation did not transport the bills from the bottom of the Columbia River but could have been a contributing factor to the bills staying buried until 1980.

No dredging material was at the Ingram site but the dredging material NOT AT THE INGRAM SITE COVERED THE INGRAM SITE SO MONEY NOT FOUND THERE UNTIL YEARs LATER !

And a partridge in a pear tree, too! 

 

Tom's statement is a blatant contradiction: How?

(a) The information collected by the FBI, combined with the known positions of the dredge pipes, suggests that the money find was not within the area covered by the dredging material.

(b) The new information now indicates that the dredging operation did not transport the bills from the bottom of the Columbia River but could have been a contributing factor to the bills staying buried until 1980.

No dredging material was at the Ingram site but the dredging material NOT AT THE INGRAM SITE COVERED THE INGRAM SITE SO MONEY NOT FOUND THERE UNTIL YEARs LATER !

And a partridge in a pear tree, too! 

 

I considered this too, but it is actually correct. Here's why:

Obviously the beach has eroded up to the dirt road on Tena Bar since the 1974 dredge. Furthermore, it is likely that eventually the road itself will disappear due to erosion.

On the other hand, if dredging had continued per normal as of 1974 with the spoils being placed on the beach there would likely have been no erosion, or at least a minimal amount. Therefore one can deduce that spreading dredge spoils on Tena Bar did stop, or significantly mitigate, erosion on Tena Bar.

This is interesting because I don't think anyone would argue that dredge spoils were actually spread or piled onto the road itself. Yet, eventually the road will be washed away because of the lack of spoils on Tena Bar. The same principle would apply to the money find spot. In other words, spoils don't actually have to reside atop of the spot itself to prevent erosion at the spot.