If we take TKs latest diatom research paper using 377's Cooper bill at face value, he specifically excludes several theories, but one that he does not seem exclude specifically is the dredge.

My interpretation of what the diatom paper states is roughly as follows:  (feel free to correct)

- 377s bill was not a top or bottom bill in the packet/bundola, it was from somewhere in the middle.  He draws this conclusion based
on the fact that a diatom was found sandwiched between two pieces of different bills. 

- That the packet experienced water immersion at which time the bill(s) fanned out.

- While the bill(s) was fanned out, planktonic diatoms (Asterionella and others) attached themselves to the bill.  This diatom species is
active in the spring/summer time, therefore the bills only were in the water during the spring/summer time frame.

- At some point, the packet unfanned and the packet congealed back into a compressed form sealing the edges.

- Once the packet was congealed, there is no evidence of diatom's penetrating to the interior of the bill. 

- There is no evidence of sand based diatom species on the bill.  This implies that while the money was buried, no sand based
 diatom species attached (sand based diatom species are smaller than the diatom species that live in the water).

If the above is true, or at least for sake of discussion, (understanding that everything is debatable and the testing was limited in scope in
terms of it being conducted on only one Cooper bill), can we fit it into a dredge scenario ? 

- Could these three bundles still have been in the main bank bag or
does the evidence pointing to the fanning of the packet require that the packets were free from the bag or parachute wrapping?

I think it could also fit into the scenario where the money was somewhere on dry land, and
transported via one of the spring/summer flood events that have been discussed before.  At the time of this flood event, the money would have been saturated, fanned out, exposed to planktonic diatoms and then transported to rest at the area of Tena bar at which time it unfanned and perhaps buried by a few inches of sand that settled on top as the flood waters receded and congealed. 

But more questions I haven't seen an answer to:

- How long does it take for money to congeal ? 
- What conditions are required for congealing ? 
- If money fans out while under water, does it eventually sink and unfan ? 
- Or does unfanning only take place if it is out of water ?
- Can Asterionella or other diatoms live at the bottom of the Colombia River, does sun light reach the bottom ?

Sorry for the long post, just thinking out loud...

What is a sand based diatom - got an example?   

all of your other questions should go to Tom Kaye or one of the Mayors of Cooperville @ Mountain News: Bruce Smith and Marla site.   

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

If we take TKs latest diatom research paper using 377's Cooper bill at face value, he specifically excludes several theories, but one that he does not seem exclude specifically is the dredge.

My interpretation of what the diatom paper states is roughly as follows:  (feel free to correct)

- 377s bill was not a top or bottom bill in the packet/bundola, it was from somewhere in the middle.  He draws this conclusion based
on the fact that a diatom was found sandwiched between two pieces of different bills. 

- That the packet experienced water immersion at which time the bill(s) fanned out.

- While the bill(s) was fanned out, planktonic diatoms (Asterionella and others) attached themselves to the bill.  This diatom species is
active in the spring/summer time, therefore the bills only were in the water during the spring/summer time frame.

- At some point, the packet unfanned and the packet congealed back into a compressed form sealing the edges.

- Once the packet was congealed, there is no evidence of diatom's penetrating to the interior of the bill. 

- There is no evidence of sand based diatom species on the bill.  This implies that while the money was buried, no sand based
 diatom species attached (sand based diatom species are smaller than the diatom species that live in the water).

If the above is true, or at least for sake of discussion, (understanding that everything is debatable and the testing was limited in scope in
terms of it being conducted on only one Cooper bill), can we fit it into a dredge scenario ? 

- Could these three bundles still have been in the main bank bag or
does the evidence pointing to the fanning of the packet require that the packets were free from the bag or parachute wrapping?

I think it could also fit into the scenario where the money was somewhere on dry land, and
transported via one of the spring/summer flood events that have been discussed before.  At the time of this flood event, the money would have been saturated, fanned out, exposed to planktonic diatoms and then transported to rest at the area of Tena bar at which time it unfanned and perhaps buried by a few inches of sand that settled on top as the flood waters receded and congealed. 

But more questions I haven't seen an answer to:

- How long does it take for money to congeal ? 
- What conditions are required for congealing ? 
- If money fans out while under water, does it eventually sink and unfan ? 
- Or does unfanning only take place if it is out of water ?
- Can Asterionella or other diatoms live at the bottom of the Colombia River, does sun light reach the bottom ?

Sorry for the long post, just thinking out loud...

What is a sand based diatom - got an example?   

all of your other questions should go to Tom Kaye or one of the Mayors of Cooperville @ Mountain News: Bruce Smith and Marla site.

Thanks Georger, I guess the sand based term was something I used to represent Tom's discussion about smaller vs larger diatoms (I suppose it's not an official term :-) ).  Where the general point was that smaller diatoms (those smaller than 3 to 5 µm) could live and move between the sand particles where as the larger diatoms would not be able to do this.  One example of the smaller diatom cited in the paper is Melosira.

If I am reading it correctly, the following quote from page 4 identifies these species as smaller diatoms:

"The diatom extraction from the surface sand at Tena Bar showed an abundance of smaller diatoms most below
5 µm in length (Fig. 3C). Genera in order of abundance, Navicula, Cocconeis, Cymbella and Nitzschia."

BTW, for anyone that may not know the paper being discussed, here is a link to the PDF:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

good work -

just for reference it would have been nice had Tom pulled samples of the strata he saw in his photo below (in 2008?) to see what diatoms are in them vs. diatoms found on the Cooper bill. Would it prove anything? No. But I like random exercises because I have a curious nature.

The upper active layer in Palmer's strata represents what time period ? Palmer only said 'recent'. The cross bedded layer below the recent upper active layer represents what layer of time? Palmer never said. Ton has never said. Cross bedded layers require time to lay down, representing multiple water events spread out over time. The next consolidated layer below the cross bedded layer, Palmer identified at the clay dredging spoils layer he said was established in 1974. (Tom says thats all wrong). Are there diatoms like the Cooper bill diatoms in all of these layers? Why didnt Tom check that out?   

Food for thought - for the curious!       

Soil bulb mites as trace evidence for the location of buried money
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

see-  You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Soil bulb mites as trace evidence for the location of buried money
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Interesting, similar strategy to TKs diatom research.

Do mites live in Tena Bar sand ?
Would mites have been visible on the bill that TK tested with his SEM?  Would you have to be specifically looking for them ?
Is it worth checking a TB bill for mites ? What are some possible implications ?  Could it be helpful ?

In TKs early analysis of the money, I believe he indicated that some of the small holes and damage on the money were indicative of bacterial colonies.  I always wondered that if the bacterial colony was identified, could that help determine where the money had been and how long it could have been where it was for the colony to do the amount of damage it had done?

If Gryder's theory about the money is true there will be nothing left of it if it escaped uncovered after 50 years.  Will never see it again.  And its never turned up.  It seems more likely than it being stored in some upstairs room of a house undiscovered.   And unspent. 

Not sure if anyone has posted these before, but here are two videos from Coopercon of Tom Kay discussing the diatom research:

Part 1:


Part 2: