You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

As I have said in the past, every theory needs a champion so it can be evaluated by all. Here was my response to Eric:

If it was any other diatom species besides Asterionella you might have an argument. There are actually scientific studies of diatoms in sand and their results show that the sand grains act like boulders against the glass structures of the diatoms. Only the smallest diatoms that can fit in the crevices' of the sand grains can survive intact.  The star like spindles of Asterionella coincidentally make it the most vulnerable of all the genera.

Since we find multiple stems associated in one place on the bill, it shows that it was not random bits that worked their way down through the sand. In fact just last night I found in intact joint between two stems still on the bill. It would be very hard to argue that an intact V structure worked its way through the sand. Even if the money was just slightly below the sand, the movement of the sand grains with the water would destroy the structures.

If the diatoms did work their way through the sand the way you say, they would only show up on the outside bills. We have found diatoms on all the bills I have looked at. So again your theory might be plausible with a different set of diatoms. We lucked out with this particular group since it allows us to constrain the environments they could be found in.  I have CC's Mark on this because I am keeping him in the research loop.

As usual I support peoples different views on this stuff and I think your line of inquiry is very reasonable.  You should probably post it somewhere and I will respond with the above stuff and it can be out in the open for consideration.

Tom Kaye

If I understand correctly, Tom is asserting that the type of diatom found on 377's bill cannot migrate down through sand, even underwater, because they're too fragile and would shatter. Essentially, we are to believe that immediately below the surface of the sand the sand itself becomes sterile of this type of diatom.

Here is the flaw with that assertion as I see it:

If the money wasn't buried upon Tena Bar via human intervention, it could have only arrived by one other method--via the river and self-buried.

Now, it is well-established that the river only reached a level that could bring the money to its burial spot twice between the night of the skyjacking in 1971 and when the money was found in 1980. Those high-river level periods center around June 12, 1972 and June 22, 1974. That's it.

Okay, it has already been established that among other things, the rubber bands lose their integrity within three months when exposed to the elements. Therefore, the rubber bands could not have survived the 7 months until June 1972 or 31 months until June 1974.

Moreover, the notion of three independent packets self-burying one on top of the other as if they were made of metal and attached by magnetism is also too unbelievable to seriously consider.

But beyond that, the self-burying process itself would be quite violent. Sand-laden water would be whipping the bills back and forth all the while the bills are being pushed further into a watery and sandy grave to lay undisturbed for another 6 or 8 years. How are the diatoms supposed to survive this abrasive process? Why wouldn't the diatoms shatter when being assaulted during this process?

Indeed, my alternative--the only alternative--involves a much more gentle process whereby the diatoms simply migrate down a handful of inches over the course of multiple days as the river crests at a level that saturates the bills. Remember, this only happened twice. Not coincidentally in the month of June both times. In fact, the second time may have actually lasted into the month of July.

So Al Fazio and the agents were lying - the money was not on the high tide line? Are you saying the agents and Fazio are liars?

You can keep ignoring it (me) but the truth aint going away. Its in the public record for those who care to read it!

If diatoms must wait for the two high water periods per decade you cite only - then there would be years with no living diatoms on Tina Bar! 

Are you saying there is no rain or snow melt on Tina Bar - ever?

How about sunshine and air?

How does sand get on Tina Bar ... if it waits for high water only twice every decade?

Eric didn't say that sand only gets on Tina Bar once or twice ever decade.  If you had actually visited Tina Bar, you would know that the Fazio's have a sand operation just a few feet from the river.  And the Tina Bar area is extremely sandy which is why erosion is such a problem.  But this doesn't fit into whatever story you are trying to palm off does it?

So Al Fazio and the agents were lying - the money was not on the high tide line? Are you saying the agents and Fazio are liars?

You can keep ignoring it (me) but the truth aint going away. Its in the public record for those who care to read it!

I think it might be helpful here to re-assess what Al and Richard Fazio said, or not, and to whom and when, along with statements from the Ingram clan. Here's what I know.

I spoke extensively with Al and Richard in 2010-2011. Al did most of the talking, and Richard was a quiet observer. Hence, I believe that at that time Al Fazio was the shot-caller in the family. That may have changed since I hear from Eric that most of his correspondence with the Fazios these days has been with Richard. Remember, Al is 80-something years old.

When I spoke with Al back in the day, I was surprised to hear him speak authoritatively on where the money was found, its condition, etc. since he wasn't on the beach - or even on the property - until long after the FBI arrived. I pushed Al a little on this discrepancy and he got defensively instantly, so I backed off. Richard, who was with the feds early in their arrival at the beach, never corrected his brother, nor offered a different narrative to me. Not wanting to start a brotherly feud, I didn't push Richard, either.

Further, I don't know exactly when Richard showed up on the beach, himself, or what he observed when he got there. My sense is that he was late to the party and only spent time on the beach after the FBI asked him to fire up his backhoe and help them dig. That would be much later in the day than when the feds first showed up and began shoveling.

Add to all of this a wide discrepancy from the agents digging on the beach gives us a real head-scratcher. One agent, Mike McPheters, says he found separate pieces on the "tide line," which comports with Al's statements. But, Dorwin Schroeder, the PIO on the beach, has never mentioned anything about shards on the tide line, to my knowledge.

Further, Dorwin has said also a lot of inexplicable things about the money find: to me, Georger, and others. Claims ranging from: a stream of shards on or near the surface going 60 yards up and down the beach that "even a blind man could follow," to the traditional "thousands of pieces down to a depth of 3-4 feet underneath the original discovery site to a radius of 20-feet."

Also, Georger has the most extensive collection of narratives from the Ingram family - Brian, Harold, Momma, Crystal - of anyone I know, certainly much more than I. But as he has told us, the family is at odds on what was found or not. What I do recall clearly is speaking with Brian at the 2011 conference and asking him if he went looking for more money after he found the three bundolas. "Sure," he said excitedly. "We spent the rest of the day looking all over the beach and digging or scratching in spots. Never found a thing," is what I recall him saying. That openly disputes the notion that money was washing up at the "tide line."

Considering all of this, I think it wisest to hold all scenarios as potentials and wait until the preponderance of evidence points us in a more coherent direction.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So Al Fazio and the agents were lying - the money was not on the high tide line? Are you saying the agents and Fazio are liars?

You can keep ignoring it (me) but the truth aint going away. Its in the public record for those who care to read it!

I think it might be helpful here to re-assess what Al and Richard Fazio said, or not, and to whom and when, along with statements from the Ingram clan. Here's what I know.

I spoke extensively with Al and Richard in 2010-2011. Al did most of the talking, and Richard was a quiet observer. Hence, I believe that at that time Al Fazio was the shot-caller in the family. That may have changed since I hear from Eric that most of his correspondence with the Fazios these days has been with Richard. Remember, Al is 80-something years old.

When I spoke with Al back in the day, I was surprised to hear him speak authoritatively on where the money was found, its condition, etc. since he wasn't on the beach - or even on the property - until long after the FBI arrived. I pushed Al a little on this discrepancy and he got defensively instantly, so I backed off. Richard, who was with the feds early in their arrival at the beach, never corrected his brother, nor offered a different narrative to me. Not wanting to start a brotherly feud, I didn't push Richard, either.

Further, I don't know exactly when Richard showed up on the beach, himself, or what he observed when he got there. My sense is that he was late to the party and only spent time on the beach after the FBI asked him to fire up his backhoe and help them dig. That would be much later in the day than when the feds first showed up and began shoveling.

Add to all of this a wide discrepancy from the agents digging on the beach gives us a real head-scratcher. One agent, Mike McPheters, says he found separate pieces on the "tide line," which comports with Al's statements. But, Dorwin Schroeder, the PIO on the beach, has never mentioned anything about shards on the tide line, to my knowledge.

Further, Dorwin has said also a lot of inexplicable things about the money find: to me, Georger, and others. Claims ranging from: a stream of shards on or near the surface going 60 yards up and down the beach that "even a blind man could follow," to the traditional "thousands of pieces down to a depth of 3-4 feet underneath the original discovery site to a radius of 20-feet."

Also, Georger has the most extensive collection of narratives from the Ingram family - Brian, Harold, Momma, Crystal - of anyone I know, certainly much more than I. But as he has told us, the family is at odds on what was found or not. What I do recall clearly is speaking with Brian at the 2011 conference and asking him if he went looking for more money after he found the three bundolas. "Sure," he said excitedly. "We spent the rest of the day looking all over the beach and digging or scratching in spots. Never found a thing," is what I recall him saying. That openly disputes the notion that money was washing up at the "tide line."

Considering all of this, I think it wisest to hold all scenarios as potentials and wait until the preponderance of evidence points us in a more coherent direction.

Contrary to Bruce's quote, McPheters doesn't say anything about the "tide line".  McPheters writes, "The money was discovered adjacent to the river and only a couple of inches underneath the surface of the sandy beach."

McPheters also writes that he was assigned a specific area to search with a rake and turned up portions of bills with their serial numbers still intact.  He states that he put those fragments in plastic bags and tagged them with his initials and the date and case number.  He also writes that he documented this with a written report.

If you were going to build a fire pit for a cookout, you would not build it at the "tide line".  The surface between the tide line and the river water is tightly packed and easy to walk on.  It is difficult to dig a pit there in addition to its being wet.  You would dig the pit in the sand further away from the river where you could easily do so with your hands.  This sandy area further up the river bank from the tide line is also difficult to walk on.

I doubt that Brian Ingram has any first hand information about what the FBI did at Tina Bar. 

Co-existence and survival of diatoms on sand grains ...
David H. Jewson , Stephen F. Lowry & Richard Bowen
Pages 131-146 | Received 29 Jul 2005, Accepted 21 Feb 2006, Published online: 20 Feb 2007
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

How deep do diatoms go at Tina Bar money location ?

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

So Al Fazio and the agents were lying - the money was not on the high tide line? Are you saying the agents and Fazio are liars?

You can keep ignoring it (me) but the truth aint going away. Its in the public record for those who care to read it!

I think it might be helpful here to re-assess what Al and Richard Fazio said, or not, and to whom and when, along with statements from the Ingram clan. Here's what I know.

I spoke extensively with Al and Richard in 2010-2011. Al did most of the talking, and Richard was a quiet observer. Hence, I believe that at that time Al Fazio was the shot-caller in the family. That may have changed since I hear from Eric that most of his correspondence with the Fazios these days has been with Richard. Remember, Al is 80-something years old.

When I spoke with Al back in the day, I was surprised to hear him speak authoritatively on where the money was found, its condition, etc. since he wasn't on the beach - or even on the property - until long after the FBI arrived. I pushed Al a little on this discrepancy and he got defensively instantly, so I backed off. Richard, who was with the feds early in their arrival at the beach, never corrected his brother, nor offered a different narrative to me. Not wanting to start a brotherly feud, I didn't push Richard, either.

Further, I don't know exactly when Richard showed up on the beach, himself, or what he observed when he got there. My sense is that he was late to the party and only spent time on the beach after the FBI asked him to fire up his backhoe and help them dig. That would be much later in the day than when the feds first showed up and began shoveling.

Add to all of this a wide discrepancy from the agents digging on the beach gives us a real head-scratcher. One agent, Mike McPheters, says he found separate pieces on the "tide line," which comports with Al's statements. But, Dorwin Schroeder, the PIO on the beach, has never mentioned anything about shards on the tide line, to my knowledge.

Further, Dorwin has said also a lot of inexplicable things about the money find: to me, Georger, and others. Claims ranging from: a stream of shards on or near the surface going 60 yards up and down the beach that "even a blind man could follow," to the traditional "thousands of pieces down to a depth of 3-4 feet underneath the original discovery site to a radius of 20-feet."

Also, Georger has the most extensive collection of narratives from the Ingram family - Brian, Harold, Momma, Crystal - of anyone I know, certainly much more than I. But as he has told us, the family is at odds on what was found or not. What I do recall clearly is speaking with Brian at the 2011 conference and asking him if he went looking for more money after he found the three bundolas. "Sure," he said excitedly. "We spent the rest of the day looking all over the beach and digging or scratching in spots. Never found a thing," is what I recall him saying. That openly disputes the notion that money was washing up at the "tide line."

Considering all of this, I think it wisest to hold all scenarios as potentials and wait until the preponderance of evidence points us in a more coherent direction.

I can live with all of yours. Good report! The weakness in R99s account is his insistence on "If you were going to build a fire pit for a cookout.you would not build it at the "tide line". .." which is irrelevant! The issue is what did happen, not what should have happened according to R99! Facts vs opinions.

Brian's admission 'they spent the rest of the day looking for more money' is important. That admission says that money was important to the Ingrams, and their stumbling across money at Tina Bar was a 'surprise' (not planned). That fact rules out a lot of scenarios various people have suggested. We may not have the whole story of what happened on that day, except that McPheters did find fragments the Ingrams missed, likewise other agents, and the sum-total from all sources probably exceeds $6000. All of it found somewhere within the 'zone' of where agents found their fragments ... if you use what the agents found vs. what the Ingrams found as the indicator for where the money was on the sandbar.

I think Brian has always known more than he is saying. He's protecting his parent's reputations, and his own reputation - good Christian man that he is and practices.

I talked to Patricia Ingram once. I was surprised at how easy and forthcoming she was. I could have asked her (I wanted to ask her!) about the finding of the money, but I steered away from that. The reason I was talking to her at all was to straightened out the matter of paper straps vs rubber bands that suddenly came up, and to get her permission to do forensic tests on the money.

I think the money fragments themselves give up the 'zone' at TBar in which the money was found. Tides are a factor in that zone. I asked Tom about diatom counts - he never answered; maybe he has no counts. Diatoms require moisture/water and water-born nutrients. My guess is diatom counts on the money are within the same range as they are in the sand generally, in that 'zone' from which the money emerged.

Pat did tell me the money was wet when found. Their first task at home was drying the money out. They separated the money into groups and set all of them on the kitchen table, to dry. Wet money at Tina Bar implies diatoms.

What somebody should do is determine the standard depth zone in which diatoms exist, at Tina Bar. Is that zone 8 inches, 12", . . . ?           

Silly Georger again!  He would probably try digging a fire pit under several feet of water.  But based on my personal experiences in digging fire pits on tributaries of the Columbia River, they are much more successful when built on dry land and several feet from the water's edge.

The rest of Georger's post is based on his presumed ability to read Brian's mind, Patricia's presumed replies to his questions if he had the guts to ask those questions in the first place, and his speculations about everything else.

please wait for the next available agent - your call is important to NOBODY.

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

So Al Fazio and the agents were lying - the money was not on the high tide line? Are you saying the agents and Fazio are liars?

You can keep ignoring it (me) but the truth aint going away. Its in the public record for those who care to read it!

I think it might be helpful here to re-assess what Al and Richard Fazio said, or not, and to whom and when, along with statements from the Ingram clan. Here's what I know.

I spoke extensively with Al and Richard in 2010-2011. Al did most of the talking, and Richard was a quiet observer. Hence, I believe that at that time Al Fazio was the shot-caller in the family. That may have changed since I hear from Eric that most of his correspondence with the Fazios these days has been with Richard. Remember, Al is 80-something years old.

When I spoke with Al back in the day, I was surprised to hear him speak authoritatively on where the money was found, its condition, etc. since he wasn't on the beach - or even on the property - until long after the FBI arrived. I pushed Al a little on this discrepancy and he got defensively instantly, so I backed off. Richard, who was with the feds early in their arrival at the beach, never corrected his brother, nor offered a different narrative to me. Not wanting to start a brotherly feud, I didn't push Richard, either.

Further, I don't know exactly when Richard showed up on the beach, himself, or what he observed when he got there. My sense is that he was late to the party and only spent time on the beach after the FBI asked him to fire up his backhoe and help them dig. That would be much later in the day than when the feds first showed up and began shoveling.

Add to all of this a wide discrepancy from the agents digging on the beach gives us a real head-scratcher. One agent, Mike McPheters, says he found separate pieces on the "tide line," which comports with Al's statements. But, Dorwin Schroeder, the PIO on the beach, has never mentioned anything about shards on the tide line, to my knowledge.

Further, Dorwin has said also a lot of inexplicable things about the money find: to me, Georger, and others. Claims ranging from: a stream of shards on or near the surface going 60 yards up and down the beach that "even a blind man could follow," to the traditional "thousands of pieces down to a depth of 3-4 feet underneath the original discovery site to a radius of 20-feet."

Also, Georger has the most extensive collection of narratives from the Ingram family - Brian, Harold, Momma, Crystal - of anyone I know, certainly much more than I. But as he has told us, the family is at odds on what was found or not. What I do recall clearly is speaking with Brian at the 2011 conference and asking him if he went looking for more money after he found the three bundolas. "Sure," he said excitedly. "We spent the rest of the day looking all over the beach and digging or scratching in spots. Never found a thing," is what I recall him saying. That openly disputes the notion that money was washing up at the "tide line."

Considering all of this, I think it wisest to hold all scenarios as potentials and wait until the preponderance of evidence points us in a more coherent direction.

I can live with all of yours. Good report! The weakness in R99s account is his insistence on "If you were going to build a fire pit for a cookout.you would not build it at the "tide line". .." which is irrelevant! The issue is what did happen, not what should have happened according to R99! Facts vs opinions.

Brian's admission 'they spent the rest of the day looking for more money' is important. That admission says that money was important to the Ingrams, and their stumbling across money at Tina Bar was a 'surprise' (not planned). That fact rules out a lot of scenarios various people have suggested. We may not have the whole story of what happened on that day, except that McPheters did find fragments the Ingrams missed, likewise other agents, and the sum-total from all sources probably exceeds $6000. All of it found somewhere within the 'zone' of where agents found their fragments ... if you use what the agents found vs. what the Ingrams found as the indicator for where the money was on the sandbar.

I think Brian has always known more than he is saying. He's protecting his parent's reputations, and his own reputation - good Christian man that he is and practices.

I talked to Patricia Ingram once. I was surprised at how easy and forthcoming she was. I could have asked her (I wanted to ask her!) about the finding of the money, but I steered away from that. The reason I was talking to her at all was to straightened out the matter of paper straps vs rubber bands that suddenly came up, and to get her permission to do forensic tests on the money.

I think the money fragments themselves give up the 'zone' at TBar in which the money was found. Tides are a factor in that zone. I asked Tom about diatom counts - he never answered; maybe he has no counts. Diatoms require moisture/water and water-born nutrients. My guess is diatom counts on the money are within the same range as they are in the sand generally, in that 'zone' from which the money emerged.

Pat did tell me the money was wet when found. Their first task at home was drying the money out. They separated the money into groups and set all of them on the kitchen table, to dry. Wet money at Tina Bar implies diatoms.

What somebody should do is determine the standard depth zone in which diatoms exist, at Tina Bar. Is that zone 8 inches, 12", . . . ?           

Silly Georger again!  He would probably try digging a fire pit under several feet of water.  But based on my personal experiences in digging fire pits on tributaries of the Columbia River, they are much more successful when built on dry land and several feet from the water's edge.

The rest of Georger's post is based on his presumed ability to read Brian's mind, Patricia's presumed replies to his questions if he had the guts to ask those questions in the first place, and his speculations about everything else.

In Harold Ingrams interview for the history case closed documentary he mentions nothing about digging a pit. He said he told Brian to clear the area not dig and that’s when the money was discovered.

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

So Al Fazio and the agents were lying - the money was not on the high tide line? Are you saying the agents and Fazio are liars?

You can keep ignoring it (me) but the truth aint going away. Its in the public record for those who care to read it!

I think it might be helpful here to re-assess what Al and Richard Fazio said, or not, and to whom and when, along with statements from the Ingram clan. Here's what I know.

I spoke extensively with Al and Richard in 2010-2011. Al did most of the talking, and Richard was a quiet observer. Hence, I believe that at that time Al Fazio was the shot-caller in the family. That may have changed since I hear from Eric that most of his correspondence with the Fazios these days has been with Richard. Remember, Al is 80-something years old.

When I spoke with Al back in the day, I was surprised to hear him speak authoritatively on where the money was found, its condition, etc. since he wasn't on the beach - or even on the property - until long after the FBI arrived. I pushed Al a little on this discrepancy and he got defensively instantly, so I backed off. Richard, who was with the feds early in their arrival at the beach, never corrected his brother, nor offered a different narrative to me. Not wanting to start a brotherly feud, I didn't push Richard, either.

Further, I don't know exactly when Richard showed up on the beach, himself, or what he observed when he got there. My sense is that he was late to the party and only spent time on the beach after the FBI asked him to fire up his backhoe and help them dig. That would be much later in the day than when the feds first showed up and began shoveling.

Add to all of this a wide discrepancy from the agents digging on the beach gives us a real head-scratcher. One agent, Mike McPheters, says he found separate pieces on the "tide line," which comports with Al's statements. But, Dorwin Schroeder, the PIO on the beach, has never mentioned anything about shards on the tide line, to my knowledge.

Further, Dorwin has said also a lot of inexplicable things about the money find: to me, Georger, and others. Claims ranging from: a stream of shards on or near the surface going 60 yards up and down the beach that "even a blind man could follow," to the traditional "thousands of pieces down to a depth of 3-4 feet underneath the original discovery site to a radius of 20-feet."

Also, Georger has the most extensive collection of narratives from the Ingram family - Brian, Harold, Momma, Crystal - of anyone I know, certainly much more than I. But as he has told us, the family is at odds on what was found or not. What I do recall clearly is speaking with Brian at the 2011 conference and asking him if he went looking for more money after he found the three bundolas. "Sure," he said excitedly. "We spent the rest of the day looking all over the beach and digging or scratching in spots. Never found a thing," is what I recall him saying. That openly disputes the notion that money was washing up at the "tide line."

Considering all of this, I think it wisest to hold all scenarios as potentials and wait until the preponderance of evidence points us in a more coherent direction.

I can live with all of yours. Good report! The weakness in R99s account is his insistence on "If you were going to build a fire pit for a cookout.you would not build it at the "tide line". .." which is irrelevant! The issue is what did happen, not what should have happened according to R99! Facts vs opinions.

Brian's admission 'they spent the rest of the day looking for more money' is important. That admission says that money was important to the Ingrams, and their stumbling across money at Tina Bar was a 'surprise' (not planned). That fact rules out a lot of scenarios various people have suggested. We may not have the whole story of what happened on that day, except that McPheters did find fragments the Ingrams missed, likewise other agents, and the sum-total from all sources probably exceeds $6000. All of it found somewhere within the 'zone' of where agents found their fragments ... if you use what the agents found vs. what the Ingrams found as the indicator for where the money was on the sandbar.

I think Brian has always known more than he is saying. He's protecting his parent's reputations, and his own reputation - good Christian man that he is and practices.

I talked to Patricia Ingram once. I was surprised at how easy and forthcoming she was. I could have asked her (I wanted to ask her!) about the finding of the money, but I steered away from that. The reason I was talking to her at all was to straightened out the matter of paper straps vs rubber bands that suddenly came up, and to get her permission to do forensic tests on the money.

I think the money fragments themselves give up the 'zone' at TBar in which the money was found. Tides are a factor in that zone. I asked Tom about diatom counts - he never answered; maybe he has no counts. Diatoms require moisture/water and water-born nutrients. My guess is diatom counts on the money are within the same range as they are in the sand generally, in that 'zone' from which the money emerged.

Pat did tell me the money was wet when found. Their first task at home was drying the money out. They separated the money into groups and set all of them on the kitchen table, to dry. Wet money at Tina Bar implies diatoms.

What somebody should do is determine the standard depth zone in which diatoms exist, at Tina Bar. Is that zone 8 inches, 12", . . . ?           

Silly Georger again!  He would probably try digging a fire pit under several feet of water.  But based on my personal experiences in digging fire pits on tributaries of the Columbia River, they are much more successful when built on dry land and several feet from the water's edge.

The rest of Georger's post is based on his presumed ability to read Brian's mind, Patricia's presumed replies to his questions if he had the guts to ask those questions in the first place, and his speculations about everything else.

In Harold Ingrams interview for the history case closed documentary he mentions nothing about digging a pit. He said he told Brian to clear the area not dig and that’s when the money was discovered.

Nicky, Go to the other Shutter page, which you can access from the home page here, click the "Tina Bar" name, and you will immediately see a picture of a very young Brian Ingram at Tina Bar.  Adjacent to that picture is Brian's description of how he found the money.  In that description he states that they were going to build a fire and he started moving sand.  It is not a big jump to conclude that the end result was expected to be a pit with a fire in it.