Author Topic: Tena Bar Money Find (Read 1665803 times)

Shutter · « **Reply #2130 on:** July 17, 2016, 10:56:33 AM »

Why would Cooper bury the money? to gain attention, or divert? why not send the FBI a $20 dollar bill? a lot of people tend to believe Cooper sent the other letters, why not send solid proof.

As much as the side profile of the beach is needed, I believe an overhead photo would also be critical showing where pieces were located...

Added: The crew notes I recently released state that paper bands ("bank-type bands around each package") were seen on the bundles? banks are also known for putting rubber bands on multiple bundles, could this be another possibility over looked, or not mentioned by the FBI?

nmiwrecks · « **Reply #2131 on:** July 17, 2016, 01:01:53 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I've always found it odd that we have the dredge depositing sand from the bottom of the river right onto the area where the money was found. the plane crossed the river somewhere? could a lot of the evidence been washed away prior to the discovery?

The position and condition of the ransom money on Tena Bar are exactly what one would expect if the money arrived via the dredging operation. Have we heard any other reasonable theories that describe what was found, besides Robert99's theory? Why are people trying to over-complicate the obvious?

Shutter · « **Reply #2132 on:** July 17, 2016, 01:19:17 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I've always found it odd that we have the dredge depositing sand from the bottom of the river right onto the area where the money was found. the plane crossed the river somewhere? could a lot of the evidence been washed away prior to the discovery?

The position and condition of the ransom money on Tena Bar are exactly what one would expect if the money arrived via the dredging operation. Have we heard any other reasonable theories that describe what was found, besides Robert99's theory? Why are people trying to over-complicate the obvious?

Yep, and I understand the "fanning process" the money goes through when introduced to water, but will this effect occur while they are all bundled together? the only way to prove, or dismiss this part of the problem is to run a series of tests using a dredge.

Robert99 · « **Reply #2133 on:** July 17, 2016, 01:39:49 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Sorry, I have a bad habit of modifying the last post thinking it's mine....

How do you think the money would hold up underwater still in the bag prior to being run through the dredge? could this also be a possibility. that's assuming the bag was tied while resting on the bottom. then you have to find out how long the bag would holdup by itself in the environment...

Photo shows currency found from the Titanic...it can survive a rather long time underwater...

I have encountered many things underwater that show signs of remarkable preservation. Attached is a 2006 photo of some corn recovered from a shipwreck in Lake Huron which foundered in 1893. I wouldn't eat it, but it is remarkably well preserved for being a century old. I have personally encountered fragile fabrics and paper from the 1880 in the bowels of shipwrecks that were nearly perfectly preserved. There's no way these objects would have survived above water, without being in near perfect conditions (no sunlight, humidity, etc.).

If the ransom money was cocooned in a canvas bag, and found its way into a cold, low oxygen environment and was protected from water flow, the rubber bands could stay intact for years, probably decades

Let me ask you a hypothetical question. Assume that the money bag landed on dry ground and very near the river water. The money bag would probably be damaged in the landing (it certainly would be if Cooper was a no-pull and landed on top of it). Anyway, over a period of time, assume that at least part of the money in the bag would be alternately exposed to cycles of being wet and then drying out.

Could the alternate dry/wet cycles account for some of the money fragmenting while the money that stayed reasonably dry and protected by the bag stayed in relatively good shape. Eventually, the bag and all its contents would go downstream.

Tom Kaye states that the money he has buried in a sample of Tina Bar sand is in quite good shape and nowhere as deteriorated as the money found at Tina Bar. Hence, we need another explanation for how the Tina Bar money got into such bad shape with a lot of fragments and still had some relatively intact bundles.

Shutter · « **Reply #2134 on:** July 17, 2016, 01:53:12 PM »

This area can drive someone insane in a short period of time trying to figure thing s out...

We know for a fact that heavy erosion occurs on Tena Bar..
We know for a fact the dredge was there is 74, and deposited it's contents in the same area of the money find.
We know for a fact the plane crossed the Columbia...
We know for a fact pieces have been found at different levels..

What we don't know is exactly where the plane was when Cooper jumped.
What we don't know is if flooding could be the key to the money.
What we don't have is a body found near the money location, or the briefcase, chutes, nothing has surfaced.
What we don't know is whether the layers were properly stated as fact to where the dredge material was in 1980.

I'm sure I missed some points, but it's spinning my head at the moment

Robert99 · « **Reply #2135 on:** July 17, 2016, 02:03:40 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This area can drive someone insane in a short period of time trying to figure thing s out...

We know for a fact that heavy erosion occurs on Tena Bar..
We know for a fact the dredge was there is 74, and deposited it's contents in the same area of the money find.
We know for a fact the plane crossed the Columbia...
We know for a fact pieces have been found at different levels..

What we don't know is exactly where the plane was when Cooper jumped.
What we don't know is if flooding could be the key to the money.
What we don't have is a body found near the money location, or the briefcase, chutes, nothing has surfaced.
What we don't know is whether the layers were properly stated as fact to where the dredge material was in 1980.

I'm sure I missed some points, but it's spinning my head at the moment

Nothing adds up. Which means that we need to look at some new possibilities.

Shutter · « **Reply #2136 on:** July 17, 2016, 02:06:03 PM »

My points with the dredge are rather simple..approx. 6 years of time is between the dredge, and the find. that's a lot of time to erase evidence.....

georger · « **Reply #2137 on:** July 17, 2016, 03:27:27 PM »

I am trying to make sense of Tom's photos to get a comprehensive picture of Tina Bar, past and present. Tom's photos are from 2008-09, almost 30 years after the money find and excavation at TBar. As Tom says, there has been loss of frontage and elevation going clear back to the top of the hill, as Tom's photos show. We dont have any actual numbers on this erosion so we can only guess. Moreover we dont have any numbers on elevations or distances in these photos to judge this matter. Here we are concerned with the geology of TBar so 'any' discussion of rubber bands is irrelevant and I want to set that matter off to the side. Rubber bands did not form or change the strata at Tena Bar!

The photo attached shows the different formations in their locations, more-or-less. Tom says one of three clay layers in his photo just below the grass line at the top of the hill, way back from the water line, is the same clay layer Drs Palmer and Benson miss-identified as being the dredging layer in 1980. Tom doesnt show where Palmer's trench would have been in these photos in 1980. I am struggling to connect these photos to how Tina Bar was in 1980 or to Palmer's findings in 1980 specifically. I dont understand how Palmer and Benson can be right "with the evidence they had" but be "wrong" in some larger picture Tom has that Palmer and Benson missed?

Tom had previously made a distinction and showed a photo measurement saying the Cooper money and the 1974 dredging were in different locations far removed from each other, so they had nothing to do with each other. Tom had always thought that the money was buried earlier than 1974. But Tom is now saying: It is therefore logical to assume the dredging kept replenishing the sand on the beach, keeping the money buried. and the dredging kept sand over it until the late 70's when dredging stopped.. Let's back up here!

So far as I know there was only one single dredging event at Tina Bar between 1970 and 1980 and that was in August of 1974. What is all of this other dredging "until late in the 1970s" that Tom is talking about, at Tina Bar? Is Tom introducing new facts to this story? Could Tom share with us what new information on dredging at Tina Bar he has and where he got that info? Until further notice I am going to assume there was only one reported dredging event at Tina Bar that has anything to do with this matter and that was in August of 1974 ... and none other!

Shutter · « **Reply #2138 on:** July 17, 2016, 04:15:03 PM »

Here is what always confused me. Tom's website states that the sand was only spread about 50 yards in each direction, so, how is dredge layers found in the area of the money almost 3 times the distance the FBI stated the sand was spread? I've mentioned over the years that a much larger area would be covered given the amount of material that was there...

Quote from Tom's site...

Quote

measurement between the center of the dredging sand and the money find is approximately 150 yards. In order for the money bundles to be washed up by the dredge, it would require them to be bulldozed 150 yards up the beach. This is 200% more than the stated and visual distances making it unlikely the money was buried due to dredging.

Since the only known date of dredge activity was 74 (pointed out by Georger) this would be considered early, to mid 70's, and not late 70's. either way it's one single dredge event. the only other time known would be 1986, years after the money was found...

Shutter · « **Reply #2139 on:** July 17, 2016, 04:26:50 PM »

The 1986 photo below shows dredging in action. note the slurry escaping down the riverbank. imagine how much of the evidence could of simply floated, or drifted away during this process. the 1986 photo shows the material being deposited further up on the property, and not down close to the riverbank as it was done in 1974. lots of the material remained in place, and ended up right back on the bottom of the river since the piles were right at the waters edge.

Robert99 · « **Reply #2140 on:** July 17, 2016, 06:20:26 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Here is what always confused me. Tom's website states that the sand was only spread about 50 yards in each direction, so, how is dredge layers found in the area of the money almost 3 times the distance the FBI stated the sand was spread? I've mentioned over the years that a much larger area would be covered given the amount of material that was there...

Quote from Tom's site...

Quote
measurement between the center of the dredging sand and the money find is approximately 150 yards. In order for the money bundles to be washed up by the dredge, it would require them to be bulldozed 150 yards up the beach. This is 200% more than the stated and visual distances making it unlikely the money was buried due to dredging.

Since the only known date of dredge activity was 74 (pointed out by Georger) this would be considered early, to mid 70's, and not late 70's. either way it's one single dredge event. the only other time known would be 1986, years after the money was found...

The money was found at Tina Bar in February 1980 and Mt. St. Helens blew its stack in May 1980. Most of the ash from Mt. St. Helens fell over the Columbia River watershed. The end result was that the ash was so abrasive that it damaged the electrical generators in some of the 15 or so dams on the Columbia and its tributaries. The quantity of ash was so great that shipping between Portland and the Pacific had to close down for an extended period of time while the channel was dredged.

So there is a possibility that some of that dredged ash material was deposited at Tina Bar and has been there since 1980 and after the money was found and recovered.

georger · « **Reply #2141 on:** July 18, 2016, 12:40:20 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Here is what always confused me. Tom's website states that the sand was only spread about 50 yards in each direction, so, how is dredge layers found in the area of the money almost 3 times the distance the FBI stated the sand was spread? I've mentioned over the years that a much larger area would be covered given the amount of material that was there...

Quote from Tom's site...

Quote
measurement between the center of the dredging sand and the money find is approximately 150 yards. In order for the money bundles to be washed up by the dredge, it would require them to be bulldozed 150 yards up the beach. This is 200% more than the stated and visual distances making it unlikely the money was buried due to dredging.

Since the only known date of dredge activity was 74 (pointed out by Georger) this would be considered early, to mid 70's, and not late 70's. either way it's one single dredge event. the only other time known would be 1986, years after the money was found...

The figure "spread 50 yards in each direction" Tom cites comes from the Benchley Report the USCE gave the FBI in Feb of 1980. This figure is not something Tom himself has calculated or estimated. The figure is either an estimate the USCE made back in September of 1974 or "50 yards in each direction" may be the minimum amount of spreading the USCE specified in their contract with the Faxio who were hired to spread the dredge spoil. The USCE may have talked to the Fazios and looked up the old contract in 1980 after the money was found.

georger · « **Reply #2142 on:** July 18, 2016, 12:42:44 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here is what always confused me. Tom's website states that the sand was only spread about 50 yards in each direction, so, how is dredge layers found in the area of the money almost 3 times the distance the FBI stated the sand was spread? I've mentioned over the years that a much larger area would be covered given the amount of material that was there...

Quote from Tom's site...

Quote
measurement between the center of the dredging sand and the money find is approximately 150 yards. In order for the money bundles to be washed up by the dredge, it would require them to be bulldozed 150 yards up the beach. This is 200% more than the stated and visual distances making it unlikely the money was buried due to dredging.

Since the only known date of dredge activity was 74 (pointed out by Georger) this would be considered early, to mid 70's, and not late 70's. either way it's one single dredge event. the only other time known would be 1986, years after the money was found...

The money was found at Tina Bar in February 1980 and Mt. St. Helens blew its stack in May 1980. Most of the ash from Mt. St. Helens fell over the Columbia River watershed. The end result was that the ash was so abrasive that it damaged the electrical generators in some of the 15 or so dams on the Columbia and its tributaries. The quantity of ash was so great that shipping between Portland and the Pacific had to close down for an extended period of time while the channel was dredged.

So there is a possibility that some of that dredged ash material was deposited at Tina Bar and has been there since 1980 and after the money was found and recovered.

That would have no relationship to the money found at TBar in 1980. It happened after the money find and the excavation.

Robert99 · « **Reply #2143 on:** July 18, 2016, 01:04:06 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here is what always confused me. Tom's website states that the sand was only spread about 50 yards in each direction, so, how is dredge layers found in the area of the money almost 3 times the distance the FBI stated the sand was spread? I've mentioned over the years that a much larger area would be covered given the amount of material that was there...

Quote from Tom's site...

Quote
measurement between the center of the dredging sand and the money find is approximately 150 yards. In order for the money bundles to be washed up by the dredge, it would require them to be bulldozed 150 yards up the beach. This is 200% more than the stated and visual distances making it unlikely the money was buried due to dredging.

Since the only known date of dredge activity was 74 (pointed out by Georger) this would be considered early, to mid 70's, and not late 70's. either way it's one single dredge event. the only other time known would be 1986, years after the money was found...

The money was found at Tina Bar in February 1980 and Mt. St. Helens blew its stack in May 1980. Most of the ash from Mt. St. Helens fell over the Columbia River watershed. The end result was that the ash was so abrasive that it damaged the electrical generators in some of the 15 or so dams on the Columbia and its tributaries. The quantity of ash was so great that shipping between Portland and the Pacific had to close down for an extended period of time while the channel was dredged.

So there is a possibility that some of that dredged ash material was deposited at Tina Bar and has been there since 1980 and after the money was found and recovered.

That would have no relationship to the money found at TBar in 1980. It happened after the money find and the excavation.

But it would be there for excavations after 1980 is the point. Palmer would not find it but later ones such as Tom Kaye would.

georger · « **Reply #2144 on:** July 18, 2016, 02:15:48 AM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Here is what always confused me. Tom's website states that the sand was only spread about 50 yards in each direction, so, how is dredge layers found in the area of the money almost 3 times the distance the FBI stated the sand was spread? I've mentioned over the years that a much larger area would be covered given the amount of material that was there...

Quote from Tom's site...

Quote
measurement between the center of the dredging sand and the money find is approximately 150 yards. In order for the money bundles to be washed up by the dredge, it would require them to be bulldozed 150 yards up the beach. This is 200% more than the stated and visual distances making it unlikely the money was buried due to dredging.

Since the only known date of dredge activity was 74 (pointed out by Georger) this would be considered early, to mid 70's, and not late 70's. either way it's one single dredge event. the only other time known would be 1986, years after the money was found...

The money was found at Tina Bar in February 1980 and Mt. St. Helens blew its stack in May 1980. Most of the ash from Mt. St. Helens fell over the Columbia River watershed. The end result was that the ash was so abrasive that it damaged the electrical generators in some of the 15 or so dams on the Columbia and its tributaries. The quantity of ash was so great that shipping between Portland and the Pacific had to close down for an extended period of time while the channel was dredged.

So there is a possibility that some of that dredged ash material was deposited at Tina Bar and has been there since 1980 and after the money was found and recovered.

That would have no relationship to the money found at TBar in 1980. It happened after the money find and the excavation.

But it would be there for excavations after 1980 is the point. Palmer would not find it but later ones such as Tom Kaye would.

Potentially yes. Didnt dredging replenishment along the Columbia stop around 1979 due to environmental concerns?

Poll

How did the money arrive on Tena Bar

Author Topic: Tena Bar Money Find (Read 1665803 times)

Shutter

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

nmiwrecks

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Shutter

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Robert99

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Shutter

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Robert99

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Shutter

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

georger

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Shutter

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Shutter

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Robert99

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

georger

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

georger

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Robert99

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

georger

Re: Tina Bar Money Find