Chaucer

On the contrary, I don’t know anything about this. That’s why I am repeatedly expressing my befuddlement. I think you’re right though. We don’t have enough information from Tom to really draw any serious conclusions.

“Is consistent with having come from sediment which is deposited by the Columbia River” If this isn’t a description of silt, I don’t know what is.

So, what the heck is Tom talking about when he says the money didn't have any silt present on the bills and was immersed in clean water? I'm so confused...

What is the source document for Palmer and/or the FBI indicating that the bills had sediment/sand/silt consistent with the Columbia River on them?

Here's a stupid question: The beach on Tena Bar is sand, not silt. That's an important distinction. It's an entirely different type of soil. The money was found buried in sand, not silt. Would silt reach the money find spot or would it remain in the main channel? Obviously, the river causes erosion which removes soil, not adds to it. Therefore, silt isn't exactly increasing or building up on Tena Bar. How much silt is actually present at Tena Bar in an high water and/or flood event?

What exactly did I say that is not true? 1. The Ingrams washed the bills after bringing them home. 2. They washed the bills in the month of February. 3. February is a winter month. 4. Winter diatoms occur during the winter. If you can present a scenario in which the Ingrams washed the bills after finding them in February, but got summer diatoms on them, I'm all ears. I don't need a lab report to simply repeat facts.

They washed off the money in February which would mean winter diatoms.

Perhaps we are looking at it backwards. Maybe it was buried in silty water, but later the silt was washed off by diatom-rich water? Grasping at straws here…

Agreed. It makes no sense. The bag has to play a part in protecting the bundle somehow? Of course, we are all making an assumption here and that is that flood water is invariably silty and would deposit silt particles on the bills. Not a bad assumption, but one nonetheless.

Slightly downstream and upstream actually according to this image from then Army Corps of Engineers. The dotted lines indicate dredge spoil dump locations. See image below. Tena Bar had an average erosion rate of 1.25 inches per year. So, it’s buried under a small amount of sand in 72, say 3 inches. Two years later, it’s under half an inch and then gets covered by nearly 90,000 cubic yards of dredge spoils. Those spoils are spread out by the Fazios, so now the money is buried under a foot of sand. Six year later after 9 inches of erosion, in 1980, it’s under 3 inches of sand again which Brian sweeps away with his arm. Could that work? Dunno. The sticking point is a clean, wet immersion followed by a dry burial. Based on Tom’s analysis, there doesn’t seem much room for any other scenario.

Also, remember that according to the Army Corps of Engineers, nearly 90,000 cubic yards of dredge spoils was dumped on top of the money find location in September 1974. It’s possible the money was buried shortly after the crime and then buried again by spoils.

Another datum provided by Tom: A silt particle is considerably smaller than a diatom. Think a quart of milk vs a shot glass. Therefore, if a diatom can penetrate, then silt definitely can. I cannot imagine a scenario in which the money is buried naturally without silt getting on the bills unless the entire bag was buried and protected the bundle somehow.

Sure. It could have gotten there naturally without a flood. The question becomes burial. How can it be buried under sand/silt in calm, clear water?

Sorry, the link I posted doesn't appear to be working. Maybe someone else can post Tom's presentation at CooperCon this year on "Forensic Bandology". I won't try to summarize his findings because it won't do his actual presentation justice.

Regardless of Grinnell's experience, Tom's analysis answered this question: Obviously, you're welcome disagree with Tom's conclusions, but they confirm what Grinnell (a long time bank employee) said was standard operating procedure for packaging money.

I don't think anyone is saying he had "deep value" to the case. But he was the gentleman who delivered the the money from the bank to the airport, so he is certainly an interesting part of the story IMO. FWIW, his description of how bank's "typically" package money, and how Tom Kaye's research indicated the TB money was packaged matched perfectly.

Catching up on a lot of pages. Pardon me for repeating ideas that have already been shared: First, in discussions with my hydrologist, debris that begins its journey on one side of a river will end up on the same side. As you get farther away from the riverbank, that percent chance changes obviously. One would assume a piece of debris that begins its journey in the very center of a river would have a 50% chance of ending up on either side. Again, multiple variable that are impossible to account for. In addition, he stated quite clearly, and others have confirmed, that a piece of debris could enter the Columbia near Marine Park, for example, and end up on Tena Bar. Again, his specialty is tracking river debris on the Lower Columbia. The idea that anything entering the Columbia near Vancouver would only end up on Sauvie Island is nonsense. Glad Tom's research confirmed what I (and others) have been saying for years) the three packets arrived together as one rubber-banded bundle. How it arrived there is another story. I long believed it was due to arrival by flood waters via river debris (branch, log, etc). Tom's analysis now indicates immersion in water without silt which seems to point away from burial in flood sediment. The mind reels. A friend of mine and fellow researcher had an interesting thought. If the money bag remained intact until Tena Bar, could the cloth act as a sort of "filter" preventing winter diatoms from penetrating? Then through deterioration, the money bundle enters the water at TB in the spring exposing it to spring diatoms. Lastly, Tom and I spoke at CC and we calculated that Tena Bar experiences approximately 1.25 inches of erosion each year. Thus, the beach would lose about a foot of sand between 1972 and 1980 and about 9 inches between 1974 (last dredge spoils) and 1980. We concluded it was likely that the money was originally buried under a small amount of sand originally and later had more sand covering it until enough eroded for Bryan to expose it with a sweep of his arm. My thoughts for the day...

Been blocked for months.

We disagree on the fundamental facts of the case. For example, 305 was over Vancouver at 8:15, not Battle Ground. I won't belabor the discussion arguing over details. There's no point. I will clarify that I am not suggesting a jump over Portland or even over the Columbia River - merely in the vicinity of Vancouver.

What other evidence? What other evidence?

The first statement was the earliest statement of the crew- mere hours after the interviews at the airport. It was then sent by "fax" to DC. It clearly says the JUMP occurred within or near Portland. It does not refer to the call to Soderlind. The second was written days later, and its wording is confusing. I think the initial statement underscores that the crew believes Cooper jumped very close to Portland.

I don't see how a landing near or north of Battle Ground allows for the money to arrive in the Columbia River without some unusual set of circumstances. Moreover, how does the money land north of Battle Ground but miraculously arrive near the Columbia River, across the river no less, near PDX? Then, I don't see how a single bundle survives intact while tumbling along the bottom of the Columbia River. More than likely, it would end up buried in a silt mound. Lastly, you have to have the money rises up from the depths of the Columbia River and find itself on the riverbank. Simply makes no sense and doesn't confine itself to the constraints of science. Far more likely that the money bag ended up within the flood plain of the Columbia, hitched a ride with flood debris during the spring floods where the bag opened up on Tena Bar spilling out a bundle while the rest continued its journey down the Columbia. It doesn't require any complicated, convoluted, exotic, or elaborate explanations, but rather falls within natural, observable, recorded events.

So, within a few hours - perhaps less - the FBI sent this message to DC regarding the statements of the crew: Several days later, this 302 was typed up regarding Bill Rataczak's statement to the FBI: Can anyone, with any intellecutal honesty, read these statements and say they mean Lake Merwin, Battle Ground, or Orchards? To me, they clearly mean Vancouver. I have spoken with several people who live in the Vacouver/Portland area, and to a person, they all agree that the language used by the crew indicates a jump near/over Vancouver rather than points north. I have more evidence for this, but this is pretty convincing.

Considering that Cooper bought his ticket around 2:00 pm PST, is it possible to determine which in bound flights might get him to PDX at this time?