I"m anxious to hear how he responds to this, my guess is he won't. If it isn't a plant, then Kenny had to loose the money. But, then he wouldn't be able to buy that house under "suspicious" circumstances. So much of his theory requires Kenny having the money...(the house, the hiding place, etc).

who cares - really! 

Here we see the reporter pointing at the stake marking the Ingram find, and to the left and above the Ingram find a location where the reporter says some fragments were found. This places fragments of money "above" the elevation of the Ingram find. Note this for future reference.

we have seen two area's they showed interest in, they are a distance apart. why were they finding frags outside of the actual money find?

Could the smaller pieces found deeper been more subject to deterioration, where they larger at one point, or is this signs of them being shredded in the pump, and distributed around the beach at different levels as the graded the sand?

The video was posted by the cameraman who was on the beach that day. I'm trying to contact him now.

The video was posted by the cameraman who was on the beach that day. I'm trying to contact him now.

If you make contact with the cameraman, he will probably know what happened to Bill Van Andberg (the reporter).  The reporter was possibly  using a "stage name" and not his real, legal name.

Or, you might be able to find this information through the TV station in question.

I believe the correct spelling is Bill Van Amburg...

04875: [KATU Evening News]
Anderson, AlanOlsen, JeffStapleton, DonWikman, Carl (photographer)
2 videocassettes (viewing tapes available). : (U-matic)(53 min.), sd., col. ¾ in.
The tape includes a long excerpt from the local evening news broadcast from the day of the main eruption, a short piece from ABC national news broadcast, and a piece from the next day showing the demolished forests. Includes many scenes of the Toutle River. Reporters: KATU: Stan Wilson, Robin Anderson, Essex Porter, BillVanAmburg, Paul Magers, Tim Storrs, Ken Crockett, Paul Hanson, Fred Jenkins, Jim Hyde; ABC: Tom Jarrel, Tom Schell. Appearing: Bob Christensen, USGS; Jim Unterwagner, USFS; Mike Cairns, air rescue; Bud Graves, NWS; Lois Rasmussen; Harry Truma

A cousin at Vancouver says Van Amburg is correct. Where he is, who knows.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Here we see the reporter pointing at the stake marking the Ingram find, and to the left and above the Ingram find a location where the reporter says some fragments were found. This places fragments of money "above" the elevation of the Ingram find. Note this for future reference.

Georger, back about 2010 or so you and I spent about a year looking at every picture, map, etc., of Tina Bar that could be located.

Remember that the normal Columbia River water level at Tina Bar was about 5 to 7 feet above sea level (using the 1971 vertical datum).  This includes the daily tidal variation of about 1.7 feet.  Also remember that we don't know what the water level was on the evening of the hijacking.

The Columbia River water level is available for the period when the money was found.  On February 12, 1980, the water level at the Vancouver gage, using the 1980 vertical datum, was 2.6 feet for the low, 5.3 feet for the high, resulting in a mean water level of 3.95 feet.

Based on photographs of agents digging at the Ingram find location, it appears that location was at least 5 feet vertically above the water surface.  However, we don't know the water level at the time the pictures were taken.

So using the above mean value, the money was at least 8.95 feet above sea level using the 1980 datum.  But Tina Bar is about 10 river miles downstream from the Vancouver gage so we need to lower the above estimates by about 6 inches.  This would result in a mean value of about 8.45 feet above sea level using the 1980 vertical datum.

In 2010, I kept coming up with a value of about 10-12 feet above sea level using the 1971 datum that applied to the maps we were using.

The fact that fragments were found higher than the Ingram find probably indicates that they arrived first, especially if they are relatively deep down.  In my judgment, the fact that the Ingrams found three bundles only inches apart means that they came directly from the money bag and downstream with it.

But you can say with absolute certainty that the fragments started at a distance above sea level that was at least as high as they were found.  And the money bag itself, possibly with Cooper still attached to it, had to start at quite a bit higher elevation than the Ingram find since it had long since lost it flotation capability.

I see your logic but Im holding back because, for one thing, we dont have a model of Tina bar except for what Palmer provided in the area of the find, and even with that Palmer did not provide a side profile of his strata. I have been hoping Tom or someone could reconstruct one but that has never happened. I think we know enough about the general water values to make several models of how the money could have entered the find area. I think we have all but eliminated any plant theory and for a number of reasons I seriously down this money washed up on Tina Bar from the main channel (that would require multiple events based on fragment locations and depths, so it is basically ruled out).

What I am saying is we dont have enough of a model of Tina Bar to plug fragment find data into. That said, what I do have is Dorwin's recollection of the order of finds and those locations vis-a-vis the Ingram find, from the time Dorwin was there until he left. I have a list of 6-8 specific finds and their locations (and depths) from Dorwin during the time he was there. Then, we have the photos of where digging occurred and those locations and some commentary from various people about depths. Now we have photos of some of those fragments.

Behind all of this, so far as I know, Palmer found settled undisturbed strata (as did everyone else according to Dorwin). The only two strata showing mixing was Palmer's "upper active layer" (4" at the Ingram site) to a thicker "cross bedded layer showing mixing" below the upper active layer. At the Ingram site that "cross bedded" layer was no thicker than a foot if my memory is correct - I will check this tonight. Below that everything was settled and undisturbed. Now, if fragments came from 2-3 feet we are in long-settled sediment which as Dorwin states in the film is from 5-6 years old. If that is true then conceivably we are in 1974 dredging sediments, but we are somewhere in the 1974-1976 time period.

But we just dont have this side profile of Tina Bar at various locations (say from the Ingram site to 60 yards up stream where Dorwin stopped making lines based on his fragment finds) to plug find data values into!

I fear the best we can do is make some assumptions and run with it and this will result in exactly what we have now which is a toss-up between the Dredging Theory and the R99 Theory, and we wont be able to resolve this?