FLYJACK 785 #66626 October 9 Silt in the Columbia is not simple.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 271 #66627 October 9 (edited) 2 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said: I’m just going as far the evidence supports, which is that the money bundle fanned out in CR river water before it ended up where Brian found it. Not only are you going beyond what the evidence supports but you are doing so knowing contradictory evidence exists. Tom is on record of saying that the money was exposed to clean Columbia river water. Rolling along the river bottom doesn’t make for clean water environment. That 4 layer fragment came from inside the stack. We know the money was already wet when it arrived. Brian pulled the money out in three separate packets that he describes as soggy clumps that he initially thought was drift wood. When the Ingrams put them in the plastic hot dog bun bag…. the three packets stuck to each other due to the moisture, forming one solid clump. It took a solid effort by the Ingrams to peel the bills apart from what Brian has told me. So any crap that got deposited in between the bills while the bundle was fanned out in water, would of remained trapped when the bundle comes out and closes up like a clamshell. The money tells a story and you can either chose to listen to what it’s saying or be a flyjack and come up with your own version of events, thinking you know better. “and, nobody has shown the mechanism to produce the erosion pattern on the packets in situ... nobody” And you haven’t shown that the abrasion pattern on the bills is consistent with tumbling/rolling on a sandy river bottom. “the uniform abrasion pattern on the packets is consistent with a tumbling/rolling action.” I have no dog in the tena bar mystery. If Tom had found it filthy in between the layers of that bill fragment then I’d find your theory super plausible and even most likely. Tena Bar is a a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma and I think that was the intention. Good description of what the Ingrams did and their description of the money as found ...Tom Kaye - “So being this clean kinda says this money was never exposed to the water in the way you’d think.” Whether you choose to accept it or not it puts further constraints on how the money got to tbar. ... and ... One of the fragments was made up of 4 layers of bills. Tom presented his findings from his forensic analysis at CC23 and of note, he found it to be remarkably clean in between the layers of the fragment…. no soot, silt, mud ect. How in the hell is that consistent with tumbling along a sandy river bottom? First, any attempt to get Flyjack to change his mind, is 100% pointless. FJ is totally invested in his "theories" which are devoid of any facts! I am not convinced the money was ever 'in' the river or was even brought up on TBar by the river. Think about this. Is there anything about the money that requires it was ever "in the river". No question the money was exposed to Columbia water "on the high tide line". Nobody I know accepts FJ's theory that the money was delivered to TBar via the river especially in the manner he suggests. A closer analysis of the money may suggest several different locations and different conditions the money (and bands) passed through before finally found in 1980. In other words a history more complex than anything FJ knows or can even suggest. Forensic evidence gleaned from the analysis of the money should be guiding this discussion vs people's theories ! That is what Tom is attempting to do. I do not think FJ is speaking for Tom Kaye in any regard. In fact I know he isn't speaking for Tom, in any regard that I know of inspite of FJ saying otherwise. Anything that can shed light on what the Ingrams saw and did is priceless in this debate. Thanks for focusing on that. Edited October 9 by georger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 271 #66628 October 9 33 minutes ago, FLYJACK said: Silt in the Columbia is not simple.. Got anything on Musk Ox? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 271 #66629 October 9 5 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said: “I posted what the facts suggest,, others are making up nonsense that is not supported by anything but their imaginations..” Again you are the one doing what you accuse everyone else of. What are your “facts” for the money tumbling along the Columbia River bottom exactly…. the rounded corners are a fact but offers no evidence for how they got like that, it could of very well have been just degradation in situ as evidence by the holes in the bills which would not happen from rolling in the river (TK’s current stance). So what else ya got? Palmer’s theory? Not a fact. Here is an inconvenient actual fact though for your theory. In 2023 Brian gave Tom bill fragments to analyze. One of the fragments was made up of 4 layers of bills. Tom presented his findings from his forensic analysis at CC23 and of note, he found it to be remarkably clean in between the layers of the fragment…. no soot, silt, mud ect. How in the hell is that consistent with tumbling along a sandy river bottom? How does that action happen, with out shit from the river bottom getting deposited between the bills in the bundle? We know the bundle had to have fanned out in the water to have picked up the diatoms. Silt is smaller then diatoms. In August 1972 three boys find 10 and 20 dollar bills in bottom of Willamette River by the riverbank in Cottage Grove, OR. No match to a nationwide check of the serial numbers. A year later, since no one had filed a successful claim, the boys split the $2,360. This article talks about all the mud and silt on the bills when they were found. Now I know you’ll probably cite the fact that the Ingram’s washed some of the money to keep your theory breathing but I asked Brian myself specifically about the 4 layer fragment and he said it was virgin and not part of what they washed. It makes sense because there is no salvaging that for spending and it had no serials on it. Even if it did get washed, a rinse in the sink isn’t leaving it as spotless as Tom found it to be. That would require a surgical effort with certain tooling. According to Tom the layers were pretty well stuck together, it took some serious work from him to separate them, so he could look inside. Brian gave Tom bill fragments to analyze. One of the fragments was made up of 4 layers of bills. Tom presented his findings from his forensic analysis at CC23 and of note, he found it to be remarkably clean in between the layers of the fragment…. no soot, silt, mud ect. This might suggest these parts of bills were fused in some other process in some other location and never were exposed to water at Tena Bar? If Palmer is correct the money was somewhere in some other environment prior to it being at Tena Bar? It is also correct, the Ingrams did not wash ALL of the money. Im glad you included that fact. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nicholas Broughton 90 #66630 October 9 42 minutes ago, georger said: Good description of what the Ingrams did and their description of the money as found ...Tom Kaye - “So being this clean kinda says this money was never exposed to the water in the way you’d think.” Whether you choose to accept it or not it puts further constraints on how the money got to tbar. ... and ... One of the fragments was made up of 4 layers of bills. Tom presented his findings from his forensic analysis at CC23 and of note, he found it to be remarkably clean in between the layers of the fragment…. no soot, silt, mud ect. How in the hell is that consistent with tumbling along a sandy river bottom? First, any attempt to get Flyjack to change his mind, is 100% pointless. FJ is totally invested in his "theories" which are devoid of any facts! I am not convinced the money was ever 'in' the river or was even brought up on TBar by the river. Think about this. Is there anything about the money that requires it was ever "in the river". No question the money was exposed to Columbia water "on the high tide line". Nobody I know accepts FJ's theory that the money was delivered to TBar via the river especially in the manner he suggests. A closer analysis of the money may suggest several different locations and different conditions the money (and bands) passed through before finally found in 1980. In other words a history more complex than anything FJ knows or can even suggest. Forensic evidence gleaned from the analysis of the money should be guiding this discussion vs people's theories ! That is what Tom is attempting to do. I do not think FJ is speaking for Tom Kaye in any regard. In fact I know he isn't speaking for Tom, in any regard that I know of inspite of FJ saying otherwise. Anything that can shed light on what the Ingrams saw and did is priceless in this debate. Thanks for focusing on that. Well stated G. I’m with ya 100%. 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nicholas Broughton 90 #66631 October 9 (edited) 42 minutes ago, georger said: Brian gave Tom bill fragments to analyze. One of the fragments was made up of 4 layers of bills. Tom presented his findings from his forensic analysis at CC23 and of note, he found it to be remarkably clean in between the layers of the fragment…. no soot, silt, mud ect. This might suggest these parts of bills were fused in some other process in some other location and never were exposed to water at Tena Bar? If Palmer is correct the money was somewhere in some other environment prior to it being at Tena Bar? It is also correct, the Ingrams did not wash ALL of the money. Im glad you included that fact. That’s very well possible G. Speaking to the Ingrams as extensively as we have, I think we both understand the importance of their description of the money and how the rubber bands were stuck to the fibers of those bills. The rubber bands need to be in a high temp environment to enter that gooey melt phase so they can get stuck on the money how the Ingrams described. Just like the money itself the rubber bands also tell a story. A window into the money’s history as you so eloquently put it. I can tell you that a group of us have put Cooper bands that TK sent us around pieces of plywood and put them outside in the PNW throughout the summer in different scenarios and not once did they enter that gooey melt phase. These are all the days the temp got above 100 in Portland 1972-1979. Edited October 9 by Nicholas Broughton 1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 271 #66632 October 9 (edited) 2 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said: That’s very well possible G. Speaking to the Ingrams as extensively as we have, I think we both understand the importance of their description of the money and how the rubber bands were stuck to the fibers of those bills. The rubber bands need to be in a high temp environment to enter that gooey melt phase so they can get stuck on the money how the Ingrams described. Just like the money itself the rubber bands also tell a story. A window into the money’s history as you so eloquently put it. I can tell you that a group of us have put Cooper bands that TK sent us around pieces of plywood and put them outside in the PNW throughout the summer in different scenarios and not once did they enter that gooey melt phase. These are all the days the temp got above 100 in Portland 1972-1979. Your separating of the various pieces of evidence into separate problems to be solved, is crucial. I agree. Just keep picking away, one thing then the next. Sooner or later an evidence based theory or two may emerge. Tom has made several small discoveries that mean something. Your band tests mean something - important! The bills, their makeup and chemistry, the bands and their chemistry, ... all interactive in different environments. Ive seen gooey bands so I know the melt transition phase is real! I have a barber with a gooey ball of old bands stuck to his window - I laugh every time I go into his shop! The money is an interactive story of chemistries interacting in some number of environments. Now Im preaching and I will stop! Keep working on it!! Thanks. I wish we had the FBI Lab reports in full ....Good Job Nick... Edited October 9 by georger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FLYJACK 785 #66633 October 9 (edited) 6 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said: Well stated G. I’m with ya 100%. You guys are the ones with no facts... as usual. No mechanism for the erosion pattern on the bills... Nobody has any evidence or even an explanation other than tumbling/rolling. No explanation/evidence for the diatoms inside the bills if the money didn't come from the River,, the bills fanned out in the River.. the no silt on stuck samples argument makes no sense. The evidence suggests the money came from the River,,, this is really simple. There are no facts that contradict this.. it is the best and simplest theory... Resistance is futile. Edited October 9 by FLYJACK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FLYJACK 785 #66634 October 9 6 hours ago, Nicholas Broughton said: That’s very well possible G. Speaking to the Ingrams as extensively as we have, I think we both understand the importance of their description of the money and how the rubber bands were stuck to the fibers of those bills. The rubber bands need to be in a high temp environment to enter that gooey melt phase so they can get stuck on the money how the Ingrams described. Just like the money itself the rubber bands also tell a story. A window into the money’s history as you so eloquently put it. I can tell you that a group of us have put Cooper bands that TK sent us around pieces of plywood and put them outside in the PNW throughout the summer in different scenarios and not once did they enter that gooey melt phase. These are all the days the temp got above 100 in Portland 1972-1979. Your creepy Georger love fest aside.. Did you put the rubber bands in the sand.. it gets very very hot. Rubber bands melt due to heat, UV, ozone or chemical reaction.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georger 271 #66635 October 9 (edited) 7 hours ago, FLYJACK said: Your creepy Georger love fest aside.. Did you put the rubber bands in the sand.. it gets very very hot. Rubber bands melt due to heat, UV, ozone or chemical reaction.. You seem confused. Edited October 9 by georger Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FLYJACK 785 #66636 October 10 (edited) 21 hours ago, georger said: You seem confused. Nope, your analysis is consistently poor.... But you guys are wrong.. Palmer got it right, he is a Geologists not a California pot head and can recognize attrition due to rolling/tumbling on objects.. I have read a lot of research on this and the shape of the packets is 100% consistent with attrition caused by tumbling impacts on the bottom of the River.. For a rectangular shaped object, first the corners get rounded off then a convex shape is formed.. the ends wear off more than the middle top/bottom.. If the erosion was in situ it would be more random around the outside and not as symmetrical.. Interestingly, the concave shape suggests it was not tumbling long.. more time would cause it to reduce down closer to a "circle" shape... that is consistent with Tom's finding that the money could not travel far... So, the money rolled/tumbled along the bottom of the River but not far perhaps a few miles and that matches Frenchman's Bar,, a public beach with easy access,,, The best. simplest and most plausible TBAR theory that fits the physical evidence is that the money went into the River at Frenchman's Bar closer to the money find in Spring/Summer... we just don't know who did it? I have another good theory for Spring 1972 but I think the other one is best.. I'll be here all week, try the veal... Edited October 10 by FLYJACK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FLYJACK 785 #66637 Saturday at 12:59 PM Got it,, found a match for the tie particles.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DWeber 6 #66638 Saturday at 02:33 PM 1 hour ago, FLYJACK said: Got it,, found a match for the tie particles.. You mentioned that a few months ago. Same place or new info? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FLYJACK 785 #66639 Saturday at 02:46 PM (edited) 25 minutes ago, DWeber said: You mentioned that a few months ago. Same place or new info? More detailed,,, All particles are not from a single source.. Silicon, Alumina, Titanium, Calcium, Sodium etc and rare earths... matched.. and it is not from inside the USA... All of these from one source... Who, What, Where, When and Why.. Edited Saturday at 02:59 PM by FLYJACK Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FLYJACK 785 #66640 Tuesday at 05:13 PM There was a Skychef "owned" restaurant at PDX in Nov 1971.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites