You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I knew sooner or later video of the money find would show up.....Yahtzee

I'm having a hard time getting over the coincidence that the money was found on the bank of a river about five miles (or less) downstream of where flight 305 crossed and in an area of dredge spoils.  I'm not feeling the "plant" theory at all.  It sounds like something someone would make up to fit the previously known "facts" of the find and to promote their suspect.  That leaves flooding, R99's gravity theory, and dredging.  Any other theories still in play that I missed?  Maybe we should do another poll? 

A few months back, I thought Georger mentioned Palmer's description of his interpretation of the "layers".  Georger, do you have that information available?

Palmer made no attempt, apparently, to explain the fragments being found. It isn't addressed in the version of his report we have. He seems to agree with the final statement by the reporter on the scene that 'most of the pieces were found at or near the surface' in the same layer the Ingram bundles were found in. This leaves all pieces found at a deeper level (2-3 feet) in complete limbo without any satisfactory explanation. Moreover the location of those deep fragments is important.

And all of this is occurring (north? down stream) of the north-most 1974 dredging pile.

In every case, it seems to me, these deeper fragments are being found at a depth close to where the 1974 dredging boundary layer should be? Everything above that depth layer has been subject to multiple hydrological events, some amount of hydrological mixing, and erosion. *If I understand Tom correctly, he even believes the Ingram money was close to the surface as a result of years of erosion and quite possibly had originally been deposited before 1974?

These deep fragments tend to agree with an earlier deposition scenario? And, it is very unlikely that multiple wash-ins would bring 'everything' to just one location, in and around the Ingram find only, coincidentally just down stream of a 1974 dredging spoil placement, on the very long sand bar (Tina's Bar) where there is plenty of linear space for things to 'wash up' on! Why only at the Ingram location unless some single specific event can account for it? And the one specific event that did occur close to there was the deposit of dredging spoils in 1974.

I think the probabilities favor a single specific event over all other options, and that specific event was the 1974 dredging. The 1978-79 flood cannot account for any fragments occurring at 2-3 feet deep? 

R99's problem is he must show how multiple wash-ins occurred over time, from some area on land then to Tina Bar .. all winding up in the Ingram location alone. That is going to be very difficult to prove, statistically.
 

The heart of the matter.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The heart of the matter.

I cant believe the poll so far. ?  So I went back and copied what I wrote in case I have to defend it later!    How's that for confidence?   

Georger,

Just exactly what are you talking about here?

Georger  You say:  "Just an idle remark - the poll - dredging theory has the most votes - did not expect that, but of course the final vote is not in. It would be nice to know why people are voting the way they are. There can be only one right answer. I am not saying its mine in case anyone asks."

I have said before:   "The money was the three bundles that DB offered to the Flight Crew for their help but got refused by the Crew. DB  then rolled up the three bundles of 20's in the paper sack he had brought onboard (because he had the rest of the money tied up in the bank sack and on to his body. Then when he jumped and the shock of the opening of the chute caused the rolled up bundles to fly out of the inside of his shirt, it floated through the air and into the small creeks and into the Columbia. Once in the Columbia the rolled-up bag kept the three bundles together and boyant until it floated to Tina's Bar and then got covered by some sand. The three bundles stayed all together  (something that dredged loot would have a hard time doing) and the paper sack rotted away with time and the three bundles stayed stacked neatly all together as first delivered to the sand bar. Georger, take some pills and forget to comment about the bundles, but their being all neatly together is a clue as to how they got there and in the alignment as found. Dredged loot would have a hard time staying all together and lined up so neatly. Also, I think someone did an experiment with floating the money in a bag and it worked to keep it afloat and not to sink into the Columbia."

Bob Sailshaw
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Georger, take some pills and forget to comment about the bundles

Lets ease up on personal attacks...everyone has a right to an opinion. this is a discussion forum, theories are brought forward, and don't need to be mocked. we get a long pretty well here, far better than what happened on the DZ, or on other forums where they basically talk with themselves (smiles)

Lets work the problems, try and resolve them vs attacking each other. I think we can work as a team and get positive results on this case, but we can't if we choose to argue points, or theories.

Shutter

Someone else asked the same question as I did a few comments back. would the money decay faster deeper in the sand? I'm wondering why smaller pieces were found at lower levels.

I realize the FBI was a little sloppy in dealing with the excavation, but the video shows them finding piece during the filming, and just after digging in the same area.

For those who believe the money washed up onto the beach. I would like to hear how that occurred, do you believe the money came up from the bottom on it's own? I don't think that's how R99 explains his theory, I hope he makes his posts soon, I'm eager to read his whole theory. I think the dredge as good point, and R99 has good points. these should be the focus IMO.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Someone else asked the same question as I did a few comments back. would the money decay faster deeper in the sand? I'm wondering why smaller pieces were found at lower levels.

I realize the FBI was a little sloppy in dealing with the excavation, but the video shows them finding piece during the filming, and just after digging in the same area.

For those who believe the money washed up onto the beach. I would like to hear how that occurred, do you believe the money came up from the bottom on it's own? I don't think that's how R99 explains his theory, I hope he makes his posts soon, I'm eager to read his whole theory. I think the dredge as good point, and R99 has good points. these should be the focus IMO.

It appears that moisture level increases with the depth of the soil.  On one part of the video you could see water on the bottom of the trench.  This could account for the deeper bills being decayed down to small pieces, or mush.

So, did we ever have any "pieces" of money on the beach, or were they all bills when they made it to there resting place and decayed as time past? does this rule out the dredge?

They also consulted the dredge company, or the dredge used by the Army corps. they stated that it would shred the money. I believe this to be true to an extent. I think some of it would, or could of escaped the jaws of the pump. I've contacted pump companies who agreed it's possible some of the money could get through. it's a good logical explanation, but is this really what happened? I just don't know....

we need to find a company willing to test our theory.....possibly one with a R&D department.

They also consulted the dredge company, or the dredge used by the Army corps. they stated that it would shred the money.

That would explain so many small pieces spread out in different layers.  Some bills could (should) make it through intact though, as large pieces of debris have been known to make it through similar pumps.

The problem is we are dealing with "expert's" opinions, versus what actually happened.  Sometimes these experts don't have complete information and are creating opinions with personal bias.  None of the experts who denied the dredge theory seemed to have information that we now have that some of the money was found in the dredge layer.  As a matter of fact, what they thought was the dredge layer is based on their personal interpretation of things, and that opinion could be wrong also.