Author Topic: Tena Bar Money Find (Read 1666118 times)

georger · « **Reply #2190 on:** July 19, 2016, 02:04:32 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Robert99 is also working on his theory of how the money arrived on the river bank. he has done a lot of work on this, much more than concluding someone must of planted the money...I haven't seen a lot of substance behind a plant.

This USCE photo taken 9-6-74 shows the state of the dredge piles that had been deposited from 8-19 to 8-25, according to the USCE. It looks to me like no spreading had occurred yet. Tom cites the USCE report as saying the piles were spread '50 yards each direction' (off center) but the actual report reads "probably" ... 50 yards each direction. Tom is reporting this as a certain figure while the actual report is says "probably" so its only an estimate!
The Corps provided no photos to substantiate '50 yards each direction'. But the 9-6 photo shows the virgin piles sitting there with no spreading to that date. Fazios explained that the piles had to settle and it took longer to settle than they originally estimated and only then did spreading begin, "over about a week", Al said .

Another thing I dont understand is Tom saying 'Palmer was right in terms of what he saw or had to work with'? but wrong in the larger picture only Tom has? Tom might as well be saying that Palmer & Benson were a couple of unaware idiots who failed to take into account some 'larger picture' of the geology at Tena Bar Tom found 30 years later in 2008-09 ?? I guess Tom is claiming (while he doesnt say it explicitly) that Palmer/Benson dug a trench. The trench failed to go clear back to the tree line, or what would be the top of the hill and erosion boundary line present in 2008. Therefore, Palmer failed to see all of the strata actually in play in 1980, whereas Tom did see all of the strata in play in 1980 by examining the beach in 2008-09. It's possible Tom could be correct. I just don't think Tom has proven his case and he shows us photos but refuses to draw a chart showing what it is he's talking about! That's junk science in my book.

Lastly, it is very important to understand what Tom is saying. Tom is saying three things: (a) the money arrived at TBar in 1971-72 before any dredging spoils had been deposited there. (b) The 1974 dredging spoils had pretty much washed away and werent even present on Tena Bar by 1980. (c) The money and fragments were in old pre-1974 strata, and one of those strata was a clay layer which Palmer misidentified as being the 1974 dredging layer because Palmer;s trench did not extent far enough back to the fence line to give Palmer the perspective he needed to correctly identify any strata! And its not just Palmer. Its Dr Benson from PSU also who was there with Palmer. According to Tom both Palmer and Benson erred.

Lets leave this here for now ...

brbducksfan · « **Reply #2191 on:** July 19, 2016, 02:48:04 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Robert99 is also working on his theory of how the money arrived on the river bank. he has done a lot of work on this, much more than concluding someone must of planted the money...I haven't seen a lot of substance behind a plant.

This USCE photo taken 9-6-74 shows the state of the dredge piles that had been deposited from 8-19 to 8-25, according to the USCE. It looks to me like no spreading had occurred yet. Tom cites the USCE report as saying the piles were spread '50 yards each direction' (off center) but the actual report reads "probably" ... 50 yards each direction. Tom is reporting this as a certain figure while the actual report is says "probably" so its only an estimate!

I believe the $ was planted - admittedly, I don't have any evidence to back that opinion up beyond the principles of Occam's Razor.

Please correct me if the assumptions I'm using are wrong, but the only way it's physically/scientifically possible for the $ to 'naturally' appear at Tena Bar is if:
1) the flight path is wrong & the plane flew over / just upstream of Tena Bar; and
2) Cooper landed/crashed at Tena Bar, or at most, a couple miles upstream of it

Given the placard recovery location, and the plane's reported locations at the DME radio beacons, I don't believe a Tena Bar flight path is viable.

Parrotheadvol · « **Reply #2192 on:** July 19, 2016, 03:17:30 PM »

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
Robert99 is also working on his theory of how the money arrived on the river bank. he has done a lot of work on this, much more than concluding someone must of planted the money...I haven't seen a lot of substance behind a plant.

This USCE photo taken 9-6-74 shows the state of the dredge piles that had been deposited from 8-19 to 8-25, according to the USCE. It looks to me like no spreading had occurred yet. Tom cites the USCE report as saying the piles were spread '50 yards each direction' (off center) but the actual report reads "probably" ... 50 yards each direction. Tom is reporting this as a certain figure while the actual report is says "probably" so its only an estimate!

I believe the $ was planted - admittedly, I don't have any evidence to back that opinion up beyond the principles of Occam's Razor.

Please correct me if the assumptions I'm using are wrong, but the only way it's physically/scientifically possible for the $ to 'naturally' appear at Tena Bar is if:
1) the flight path is wrong & the plane flew over / just upstream of Tena Bar; and
2) Cooper landed/crashed at Tena Bar, or at most, a couple miles upstream of it

Given the placard recovery location, and the plane's reported locations at the DME radio beacons, I don't believe a Tena Bar flight path is viable.

I fail to see that Occam's razor would suggest a plant.

Olemisscub · « **Reply #2193 on:** July 19, 2016, 03:30:46 PM »

Yeah, Occam's razor would actually suggest that it naturally made its way there because "someone decided to bury $5800 on a sandbar in the middle of nowhere for some unknown purpose" is NOT the simplest solution.

It's such a complicated issue though.

brbducksfan · « **Reply #2194 on:** July 19, 2016, 03:54:11 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Yeah, Occam's razor would actually suggest that it naturally made its way there because "someone decided to bury $5800 on a sandbar in the middle of nowhere for some unknown purpose" is NOT the simplest solution.

It's such a complicated issue though.

Sincere question: If one assume's the FBI flight path and drop zone is accurate, from a scientific perspective, how is it physically possible for the $ to 'naturally' arrive at Tena Bar?

Doesn't a "the $ 'naturally' arrived at Tena Bar" theory have to start with changing the flight path / drop zone? I'm not aware of anyone disproving Tom Kaye's group analysis of the flight path, which seemed pretty clear cut when I read it.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

georger · « **Reply #2195 on:** July 19, 2016, 03:57:58 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Yeah, Occam's razor would actually suggest that it naturally made its way there because "someone decided to bury $5800 on a sandbar in the middle of nowhere for some unknown purpose" is NOT the simplest solution.

It's such a complicated issue though.

What makes Tena Bar complicated is we dont have a working picture or dates on the strata there. Because of the KATU video we now have the option of the money having arrived in pieces over time starting maybe about 1972 through to 1977-79, or it arrived with the dredging material that mixed in with the existing strata then eroded to have the Ingram bundles appear near the surface mixed in with newly arrived sand. Those are the options, I think.

The key fact from the KATU video seems to be that money was distributed through several strata, including the surface sands, whatever the dates of all those strata are. I dont think dredging alone could account for that happening unless something like Tom is talking about is the case and there was a gross misreading of the strata by Palmer.

Shutter · « **Reply #2196 on:** July 19, 2016, 04:05:31 PM »

A simple solution would show that the plane crossed the Columbia river, this is a known fact. next we have the money found down stream, this would be fact #2, and finally, we had a dredge operation in 1974 that deposited material onto the beach where the money was found years later. fact #3

Robert99 · « **Reply #2197 on:** July 19, 2016, 04:11:27 PM »

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
Robert99 is also working on his theory of how the money arrived on the river bank. he has done a lot of work on this, much more than concluding someone must of planted the money...I haven't seen a lot of substance behind a plant.

This USCE photo taken 9-6-74 shows the state of the dredge piles that had been deposited from 8-19 to 8-25, according to the USCE. It looks to me like no spreading had occurred yet. Tom cites the USCE report as saying the piles were spread '50 yards each direction' (off center) but the actual report reads "probably" ... 50 yards each direction. Tom is reporting this as a certain figure while the actual report is says "probably" so its only an estimate!

I believe the $ was planted - admittedly, I don't have any evidence to back that opinion up beyond the principles of Occam's Razor.

Please correct me if the assumptions I'm using are wrong, but the only way it's physically/scientifically possible for the $ to 'naturally' appear at Tena Bar is if:
1) the flight path is wrong & the plane flew over / just upstream of Tena Bar; and
2) Cooper landed/crashed at Tena Bar, or at most, a couple miles upstream of it

Given the placard recovery location, and the plane's reported locations at the DME radio beacons, I don't believe a Tena Bar flight path is viable.

I think we have a difference of opinion here.

The placard recovery location does support a flight path that was west of the V-23 centerline and within only a couple of miles or so of a straight line between the Malay and Canby Intersections.

Since I did a very conservative analysis of the placard free fall, I feel correct in stating that the airliner did in fact fly almost directly over Tina Bar or, more accurately, about 1000 feet west of the money find location.

Which plane locations are you referring to? You should be aware, that there is absolutely nothing in the Seattle ATC radio transcripts that gives a location for the airliner from the time it took off at SEATAC at 7:36 PM PST until it was handed off to the Oakland Center in northern California at 9:45 PM PST.

Shutter · « **Reply #2198 on:** July 19, 2016, 04:32:37 PM »

If the money was planted. what would be a good depth to insure it would stay there for multiple years?

Are we now to assume the money was under the dredge material, and eroded to the surface almost a decade later?

If it was planted a year previous, how do you conclude it's condition?

Two things appear to be certain. #1 money needs to be placed on the beach for a series of tests, and a test with an actual dredge needs to be ran to determine whether or not the dredge could be responsible. would a controlled test even give the right results? people have stated this over the years, smokin99 for one. we would have all sorts of data if someone just took the time to put a few bills out for testing?

Things need to be narrowed down. this is an excellent way to begin...the dredge test will be a hurdle funding wise, but the other test is simple.

georger · « **Reply #2199 on:** July 19, 2016, 04:36:18 PM »

Palmer specifically says that the money did not 'work its way up' from a deeper stratum.

But, Palmer does not address erosion at all.

And, Palmer basically ignores the fact of fragments being found at different depths. Agents questioned him about this. He finally acknowledged there were fragments (he uses the word "fragments") but he says the fragments and Ingram bundles were all together, from the same stratum, and he never does explain fragments found below the upper active layer. This left a number of people at a complete loss of what to say. And by the end of the excavation the KATU reporter acknowledges this dilemma saying something like: 'the money and the fragments turned out not to be as important as originally thought, according to the agents here.' The reporter is acknowledging a dilemma. His reports go all the way from first saying the fragments were important to saying 'the fragments aren't as important as first thought' and the reporter signs off leaving a complete vacuum for people to speculate about ...

Shutter · « **Reply #2200 on:** July 19, 2016, 04:51:11 PM »

They state at one time "they found some dollar bills and some money fairly deep down, several feet down" they go on to explain that they were very deteriorated. they also go on to state that pieces were big enough to identify by serial number. we found "many, many serial numbers"

Agent Dorwin Schreder? spelling wrong, but he states that pieces were found up to 3 feet deep....he was the agent in charge...

How could planting the money leave these results?

georger · « **Reply #2201 on:** July 19, 2016, 06:03:34 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

They state at one time "they found some dollar bills and some money fairly deep down, several feet down" they go on to explain that they were very deteriorated. they also go on to state that pieces were big enough to identify by serial number. we found "many, many serial numbers"

Agent Dorwin Schreder? spelling wrong, but he states that pieces were found up to 3 feet deep....he was the agent in charge...

How could planting the money leave these results?

Planting cant leave those results - short of an earthquake! Which folds and mixes strata. But there was no earth and nobody including Kaye reports mixed-folded strata at Tena Bar, but unblemished layers one on the other.

His name is Schreuder.

The dredge pumping might have mixed strata to some extent at the lower boundary of the dredging pile where new material was being pumped under pressure over existing sand.

There might have been some mixing of layers at the north and south edges of the dredging piles as tractors dug and spread new dredging material into adjacent old sand. If the tractors dragged old and new material at the boundaries back and forth to spread and even things out, that could stir and mix new and old material together. If money was in an old layer then mixed and spread with the new dredge material that could bring money near the surface to be covered over new new sands say Sept 1974 to Feb 1980 ... then with erosion the mixed layer with money finally is exposed with a thin layer of new sand over it ... as Ingram found the money right under the new surface.

It is worth noting that the money and frags were found 'north' of the northern dredge pile which might be a zone where mixing occurred because of tractors working and spreading?

If Dorwin is right and fragments began about 60 yards south of the Ingram find then followed in a swath up to the area of the Ingram find, and if all of the money began as whole or partial bundles, then a tractor moving all of that around north and south might leave fragments of the bundles in a swath at different levels, as a result of the spreading process? But you just dont know if the money was in an older layer brought up with the tractor spreading or was part of the dredging spoils being spread. Something has to account for money being in different strata within a 60 yard area. Dorwin said that both the Ingram find and the frags came from a 60 yard area, approximately.

Shutter · « **Reply #2202 on:** July 19, 2016, 06:31:34 PM »

It's all rather confusing to say the least...unless the Fazio's explain just how much of an area they spread the material, and how thick can we determine some sort of layer. if we have layer's in excess of 4' thick, we have a rather larger amount being spread over a large area. that's consistent given the amount from the two spoils. I believe it's more than that tractor could handle, or a much longer process of spreading it.

I've shown this report in the past of sediments found taken from an area in front of Tena bar. they seem to be consistent with the second layer Georger provides in his "Palmer profile chart" the main purpose for the Fazio's taking this dredge material is for resale value. dredging up clay isn't going to cut it money wise. the report confirms it's the type of material they want. I'm assuming in 1974 they decided to use it on the beach vs resale?

I believe it's close to 200,000 cubic yards, now, a lot of that was probably lost by going back into the river since the spoils were on the waterline, so that number decreases with the amount used...

brbducksfan · « **Reply #2203 on:** July 19, 2016, 08:40:35 PM »

Quote

I think we have a difference of opinion here.

The placard recovery location does support a flight path that was west of the V-23 centerline and within only a couple of miles or so of a straight line between the Malay and Canby Intersections.

Since I did a very conservative analysis of the placard free fall, I feel correct in stating that the airliner did in fact fly almost directly over Tina Bar or, more accurately, about 1000 feet west of the money find location.

Which plane locations are you referring to? You should be aware, that there is absolutely nothing in the Seattle ATC radio transcripts that gives a location for the airliner from the time it took off at SEATAC at 7:36 PM PST until it was handed off to the Oakland Center in northern California at 9:45 PM PST.

I agree with you that a 'natural' placement of the $ is plausible @ Tena Bar if the plane flew 'about 1000 feet' west of the $ location. My prior post linked the flight plan analysis that the 'Citizen Slouths' did. Within it, they reference the time between the DME radar beacons on either side of the drop zone, as well as airspeed, etc., and conclude the math doesn't work for a Tena Bar overflight. Help me understand your hypothesis - what assumptions are you using that produce a Tena Bar overflight? Thanks, B

I fixed the quote box.....Shutter

georger · « **Reply #2204 on:** July 19, 2016, 11:24:38 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

It's all rather confusing to say the least...unless the Fazio's explain just how much of an area they spread the material, and how thick can we determine some sort of layer. if we have layer's in excess of 4' thick, we have a rather larger amount being spread over a large area. that's consistent given the amount from the two spoils. I believe it's more than that tractor could handle, or a much longer process of spreading it.

I've shown this report in the past of sediments found taken from an area in front of Tena bar. they seem to be consistent with the second layer Georger provides in his "Palmer profile chart" the main purpose for the Fazio's taking this dredge material is for resale value. dredging up clay isn't going to cut it money wise. the report confirms it's the type of material they want. I'm assuming in 1974 they decided to use it on the beach vs resale?

I believe it's close to 200,000 cubic yards, now, a lot of that was probably lost by going back into the river since the spoils were on the waterline, so that number decreases with the amount used...

My impression is the 1974 dredging was a USCE project - had nothing to do with some choice the Fazio's made. Im not even sure the Fazio's were in the sand business in 74. I thought Thomas said the sand business began around 1976?

Keep in mind, Tom says the dredging and the money find were so far apart the two had nothing to do with each other. Under that premise even spreading more than 50 yards in the north direction would still be many yards short of where Ingram money was found.

Poll

How did the money arrive on Tena Bar

Author Topic: Tena Bar Money Find (Read 1666118 times)

georger

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

brbducksfan

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Parrotheadvol

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Olemisscub

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

brbducksfan

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

georger

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

georger

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

Shutter

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

brbducksfan

Re: Tina Bar Money Find

georger

Re: Tina Bar Money Find