snowmman

wow. cool. good luck! (with the gear, I mean..must be hard to get all that stuff working, in a tornado :) )

Good data on entrainment (capture) rates and mortality rates fish, crabs, shrimp, oyster. (sea turtles too, on hopper dredges) This is re 377's question about salmon. paper comes from the military. Fish go thru pipeline dredges. Fish and money bundles seem similar to me. Except fish keep living too, (at a certain rate) Hey, maybe 377 could fish with a pipeline dredge? http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA358595&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf Sport and commercial fishes entrainment rate: Entrainment rates for 15 species of sport and commercial fishes were reported by Armstrong, Stevens, and Hoeman (1982) (Table 4). Entrainment rates ranged from 0.001 to 0.135 fish/cy for both pipeline and hopper dredging activities. Both small and large fish were entrained in similar proportions; therefore, it was concluded that large fish did not actively avoid the dredge any more effectively than smaller fish. Entrained fish during this study suffered an initial mortality rate of 37.6 percent. McGraw and Armstrong (1990) collected entrainment information on 28 species offish during a 10- year period (Table 4). Most species (e.g., slender sole, Lyopsetta exilis) had relatively low absolute entrainment rates approaching 0.001 fish/cy. Species with the highest entrainment rates during this study were the Pacific sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), Pacific staghorn sculpin (Leptocottus armatus), and the Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus) at 0.076, 0.092 and 0.594 fish/cy, respectively. Larson and Moehl (1990) studied fish entrainment during a 4-year study at the mouth of the Columbia River in Oregon. Entrainment rates ranged from

On June 17, 1978, the Port of Portland's hydraulic pipeline dredge (called "Oregon") sank at its moorage. It was raised about one month later. Cause of the sinking wasn't determined. This is the dredge that is still in use today. It is very likely the one that dredged to Tena Bar in 1974 http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=024RAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6uEDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3007,4191166&dq=port-of-portland+pipeline+dredge Did Duane Webber kill the cows and sink the Oregon?

The next logical step, is to get Bruce to spend a day on the Port of Portland's pipeline dredge, the Oregon. Bruce could dig up all the stories about what really happens. (It's either a 30 or 31 inch pipeline dredge) I made a post a while back where I said that it's possible the current OREGON was the pipeline dredge used in 1974...i.e. the same one.. I don't think they used a hopper dredge in 1974. If they did, then getting the money would be dead easy. In the ocean hopper dredges, they have to try to avoid picking up sea turtles! http://www.stormingmedia.us/69/6983/A698382.html also http://www.seaturtle.org/blog/mgodfrey/000463.html I posted: "There's a long history of 30" pipeline dredges owned by Portland. A 30" pipeline dredge was built for the Corps of Engineers in 1912. The last time Portland had a big channel deepening was in 1912. (this was from a 1912 Corps. of Engineers report in Google Books) [Ed. not counting maintenence or the recent 2004-2005 stuff] However here's another called "Clackamas" that was constructed by Port of Portland, reported in a 1927 book, that was a 30" diameter discharge pipeline dredge. And from the US Congress, House. Commitee on Appropriations in 1966, they were talking about another new 30-inch pipeline dredge (5000 horsepower) In 1959, this book talks about operating four 30-inch pipeline dredges simultaneously. In any case, 30-inch seems to be kind of standard for the Portland guys. Ah here's a reference in a 1965 book that says the Port's "new 30-inch pipeline dredge OREGON" SO: That means in 1965 the dredge OREGON was considered new. I'm betting Tosaw is right that it was 30". I'll go further and suggest it was the OREGON." (edit) The Army Corps of Engineers have two hopper dredges: the YAQUINA and the ESSAYONS

this is a good document http://www.sei.org/columbia/downloads/karljune.PDF from the recent columbia river channel improvement project has color photos of all sections of the river from river mile 3 to 106.5 has some good flooded photos, you can see a lot of sediment. I think one is at where the williamette comes in. Graphs of channel depth vs distance from shore at various places those graphs include 1981, 1990, 2000 data picture of their pipeline dredge in operation on page 29 1986 sand wave movement graphs starting on page 36 (the sand waves move downstream) page 39 shows 1986 sand waves moving downstream 0 to 18 ft per day. (depends on flow). avg height change of 0 to 2 feet. another nice pipeline dredge photo on page 45. you can see a LOT of pipeline stacked up ready to be used. page 47 shows the proposed dredging channel by vancouver lake and tena bar. NICE! probably similar to the channel they dredged in 1974 They show proposed disposal sites. I think one yellow there is Fazios? (attached..fuzzy) page 58 another shot of the pipeline dredge (attached) they do use a hopper dredge too ..page 61 (not sure if in 1974) page 62 analyzes turbidity. they classify the soil as Silty clay Clay Sandy loam Sand Silty clay loam The hopper dredge is apparently only Silty Clay Loam So: it makes sense there was clay at Tena Bar. They also say "hydraulic cutterhead" so that confirms they use cutterheads on the pipeline dredge

In the same post in 2007, Ckret agrees that sand is a preservative Ckret says: Once on shore the money was covered over by sand, which acted as a natural preservative, leaving what was left intact until it's discovery four to 12 months later. But he decided that the money and bag was elsewhere (Washougal) in 1977 and floods moved it. No supporting reason why on "why Washougal". Basically there's no evidence that could be used to decide what happened from '74 to '80 There's no evidence to say that water moved the bag from '74 to '80. I don't know why Ckret leaped to that idea. The depth of sand varies over the years on Tena Bar. Saying it's on Tena Bar from '74 on, is not some wild-assed theory. It's not much different, and simpler, than what Ckret proposed with a movement theory. Actually Ckret blows it badly here: he says the money somehow, sans bag, gets into the Columbia in '78 or '79 and then arrives on Tena Bar. It really seems like Ckret didn't know about the additional fragments...Because they make this theory sound crazy. In 2007 he says: Because it had been in the bag, the money had not began to disintegrate. Once out of the bag the money began it's slow rot, eventually making it into the Columbia sometime around late 1978 early 1979. Once in the Columbia, the bundles began drifting down stream. It would have taken 14.7 hours for the bundles (if unobstructed) to make it to Tena's Bar, where 3 bundles washed up. Once on shore the money was covered over by sand, which acted as a natural preservative, leaving what was left intact until it's discovery four to 12 months later.

I seem to remember Palmer brought some of his students also, after he arrived. The photos would show some portion of who was there. The excavation at Tina Bar would make a nice thesis! I am really surprised historians havent dug into this case. I dont quite understand that. I guess someone summarized this before, but Palmer wasn't there till the 2nd day? And the backhoes weren't used till the 2nd day? I'm too lazy to look back in the posts.

I was sure I had read elsewhere, that the Fazios had spread the sand from the dredging on the beach where the money was found. Looking back thru the posts here, Ckret confirmed it. He also gave exact dates for the dredging. I only had guesstimates as to the month. Ckret says front loaders were used. I suspect these were front loaders attached to the tractors. Probably same tractors that had backhoe attachment on the money dig 6 years later! Ckret said here (Nov 28, 2007 2:52 PM) http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3029469;search_string=fazio%20spread;#3029469 The river in the area where the money was located had been dredged August 19 through the 25th, 1974. The dredge material was deposited on the banks of the Fazio Brothers farms and spread by front loaders. If Bruce gets a chance, he could confirm that the Fazios spread the '74 sand. This would be in line with the geologist report. I really don't get where Tom Kaye measures the location of the dredge plumes from the '74 photo, and decides that means "dredging spoils weren't involved". It seems like such a shallow analysis. And Ckret provides testimony that's relevant.

georger said "This deposit was not suddenly thrust upon Tina Bar by a single high tide. Frankly, that is absurd." Right. No bag. fragments dispersed at a consistent depth? (at least those found) only 3 bundles found, stuck together. preserved rubber bands. Means likely deeply buried for a long time (otherwise decayed faster? The deeper, the better, probably) The bag by itself would not be sufficient to protect the rubber bands. Need to block out oxygen, I think.

I did find a news article from back then, with the picture of the younger people with rakes and shovels. They were referred to as "fbi agents" So maybe the 20 or so agents McPheters talks about, are those people intially with the rakes and shovels (before the backhoe)

the main reason I believe McPheters is generally right, and maybe just a little fuzzy on some details, is that he had a pretty full career at the FBI. I pm'ed Bruce on details. It's in his book and in various interviews online. It's such a minor thing, they're be no reason for him to make it up, just to say he was part of the Cooper thing. So I think it played out like he said. He probably just can't remember exactly what the money looked like. I was wondering if that first picture we have, where young people are there with rakes and shovels, and the video, ...if they are actually fbi agents. Or some of them. We were assuming students, but it's unclear. McPheters would have been late twenties (i miscounted before).

Bruce reported "Mike said he found about 5, 6 or 7 pieces, and said they were frayed, as one would expect bills to look like after being in the water." I've seen wet bills go thru the laundry. I don't have any image of them "fraying"...Jeans fray. The bills tear easily when wet, if I try to separate them. I've never seen bills that just fall apart due to water. I think McPheters is making theories up. I think McPheters doesn't have any idea what bills in water long term would look like, as opposed to various microbial or insect or other decomposition. It seems like it's not just Himmelsbach and Ckret. I think all FBI guys are story tellers. Amazing we can convict people and kill them based on FBI testimony.

Bruce reported "He finished by saying that “none” of the bills he found had numbers. " In McPheters book, he says he found bills with serial numbers, and he put his initials and date and case number on the bills he found. The initials on the bills we've seen aren't his initials. There is no date or case number on the bills we've seen. I wonder if McPheters was fibbing about his contribution to the money find. Or maybe just weak memory. this link has his book with what he said about serial numbers. He gives the DB Cooper think a whole chapter in his book. http://books.google.com/books?id=fF4urADqI48C&pg=PA138#v=onepage&q=&f=false from the book: "While sifting through a parcel of the beach assigned to me, I turned up portions of soil containing pieces of paper currency approximately two inches wide, but still containing serial numbers that matched Cooper's demand money. [Ed. How did he know all the serial numbers when he was digging??] I preserved each piece as evidence by storing them in plastic bags, tagging them with my initials and the date and case number. I kept digging. By late that night, and with the help of a good rake, I had found numerous pieces of the money, all of which matched up. I documented my discovery as one of the most interesting reports I had ever written." (edit) Also, why does he refer to "turned up portions of soil" rather than sand?

excellent job Bruce, as usual.

What "Himmelsbach's information regime" ? Have you proof one ever existed? Exists now? You make it sound as if it was H calling all shots and directing-controling everything. That was NOT the case. Just more conspiracy theory on your part - You mean the hundreds of newspaper articles interviewing Himmelsbach, are in error in their description of Himmelsbach as the lead in the investigation and rather than representing the investigation, Himmelsbach was just another blowhard? Okay. I'll believe that. I didn't make up the story that Himmelsbach had a lead role. It was in the papers. I suspect Himmelsbach said he was. Did Himmelsbach not tell the truth? Why cant Snoewmman find the truth, is more the point! Where is the truth? Here at DZ.com? At Nat Geo? At Seattle FBI? From our guru, Zazi? Bruce, writer, and cattle devotee? Yes, I ask the same question, where is truth? I'm confident, that with a C-123K, and some AFNO and HMTD and a uranium/gold mine in South Africa, I can find the truth. It all came to me in a dream. Buddha was standing in the middle of the road. He was dressed as a South African miner. I figured the rest out on my own.

What "Himmelsbach's information regime" ? Have you proof one ever existed? Exists now? You make it sound as if it was H calling all shots and directing-controling everything. That was NOT the case. Just more conspiracy theory on your part - You mean the hundreds of newspaper articles interviewing Himmelsbach, are in error in their description of Himmelsbach as the lead in the investigation and rather than representing the investigation, Himmelsbach was just another blowhard? Okay. I'll believe that. I didn't make up the story that Himmelsbach had a lead role. It was in the papers. I suspect Himmelsbach said he was. Did Himmelsbach not tell the truth?

I said before I'd post on this. I think there was more than one. Sad story for this guy. Good detail on back story of the first hijack here (it's Northwest Orient) http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=ZFoLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8FIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4844,1176568&dq=feb+10+hijack+money 2nd hijack (interestingly same Flight 608. 727-200) ended in his death attached...Glen Kurt Tripp Two hijacks were only separated by 2-1/2 years. He was on probation for the first. FBI did say they would have handled it differently if they knew who he was. http://www.nytimes.com/1983/01/22/us/fbi-tells-of-troubles-of-coast-jet-s-hijacker.html

the forensics may have been biased by a belief in the "cooper jumped in the woods" theory. If the forensics had been told "We have no idea where Cooper jumped"...would their data had been written up differently?

thanks for the summary georger. you said "This effort was managed by the FBI's forensic section, not by Agent Himmelsbach." Well remember the timing of Himmelsbach's retiring. He retired at the end of Feb, 1980 (or first week of March) The money was found Feb 10, 1980. Since the forensic work would have taken time, Himmelsbach was out of the loop (except as agents saw fit to consult with him, if they did at all). Himmelsbach's information regime at best covers up to the money find.

377 said "Wonder if he knew how to release the Capewell riser attach fitting on his NB6 (8?) to release the canopy after a water landing?" Capewells? I thought we went thru this. I thought there was no emergency release? from Poynter: "The Navy still does not have releases on any back, seat or chest assemblies where the harness is attached directly to the container (NB-6, NC-3, NS-3). ..." Poynter talks of Navy use of Rocket Jet releases on other rigs http://books.google.com/books?id=BKTuTXrXQu0C&pg=PA125&lpg=PA125&dq=nb-6+capewell&source=bl&ots=n_rlxp9TYo&sig=qplHR0hD6k6zMAHwajhDhXmrqu4&hl=en&ei=u1XCSvzeMITisQPXrvjqAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=nb-6%20capewell&f=false He says the Army and Air Force used Capewells. "..the Navy was using three quick ejector snaps. Rather than jettison the canopy, the user would unhook the three snaps and remove the whole assembly"

with respect to flight line: There were two lines. One is approximately the V23 airway (green), per Sluggo. The other is the flight path (light blue) copied from the FBI map. It's got more turns, curvier. It has 1 minute interval locations. The "minute" designations are per the FBI map, not corrected for likely 1 minute error issue. Note that the light blue flight path is an approximation. maybe +-1NM variance worst case? Also, in between the radar marks, the plane likely curved more. The flight path showed straight lines between the 1 minute ticks In any case, both paths get close together at I-5 when it crosses the Columbia. Flight 305 strayed off V-23 mostly before it got to PDX. I suppose since it had to fly around PDX (counterclockwise), that reoriented it. We've explored this a lot before. Maybe what's new now is that we've explored a lot of other options, so it's easier to have a different opinion of things.. The bill fragment story appears to be stronger. The black on the bills info seems resolved.

I was wondering about how sediment accumulates in the Columbia Interesting slides here (attached) Has some historical charts Mostly, I was thinking about Tosaw searching in the low-flow areas of the Columbia. But sediment drops in the higher flow areas, the shipping channels, which is why they have to dredge them. I was thinking of whether cooper and money could have ended up in the higher flow areas. Interesting comments about PDO cycle here cold PDO years are La Niña warm PDO years are El Niño • Columbia River flow varies with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) cycle • Climate-related fluctuations in sand input are larger than those in flow • Most sand transport occurs as suspended load during freshets • Dredging volumes are correlated with flow and sand supply • We are trying to understand a data-poor system PDO and Columbia R. Flow, 1858-2000 -- • CR flow exhibits large variability over 20-50 years • Cold-PDO years since 1946 include very high flows • Low-flow, warm PDO periods like 1977-95 have occurred for only ~40-45 years since 1890 • The 1980-95 period is not typical of the last 140 years PDO and Columbia R. Flow, 1946-2000: • Cold PDO: 1946-76, mean Beaver flow 7,325 m3s-1 1996-00, mean Beaver flow 8,090 m3s-1 • Warm PDO: 1977-95: mean Beaver flow 6,210 m3s-1 • Cold/Warm PDO differ by a 20+% • Ten years during 1980-95 are in the lowest third of all flow years since 1878 Sediment Transport Amplifies Climate Effects: • Sediment transport varies with flow QR as QR n, n>1 • For total load, n ~ 2.5; for sand, n ~ 3.5 • There are seasonal changes in SPM quality (e.g., size and organic content that are poorly understood) • This amplification is an important aspect of how modest climate changes have large ecosystem effects, e.g., on salmonids Sand Transport, 1946-99 • Cold PDO: 1946-76, CR+WR 4.5 x106 mt tons yr-1 1970-76, 1996-99, CR+WR 3.3 x106 mt tons yr-1 • Warm PDO: 1977-95: CR+WR ~1 x106 mt tons yr-1* • Warm/cold PDO sand transports differ by factor of 3-4 *1980 and 1981 exclude Mt. St. Helens sand input Dredging Volumes -- • Seven high-flow years since 1976: 12.2 ±2.3 x106 mt tons yr-1 (±95% conf limits) • Sixteen low-flow years since 1976: 7.4 ±1.2 x106 mt tons yr-1 (±95% conf limits) • Ratio for highflow years to lowflow years is 1.65 • EIS Projected dredging is 6.3 x106 mt tons yr-1 Dredging and Hydrology: • Dredging is correlated with flow, R2 ~0.3- 0.5 (depending on the model used) and with sand transport, R2 ~0.3- 0.6 • Best results obtained when current year of dredging is compared to the past two years of flow or sand transport • There appears to be a base dredging level of ~2-3 x 106 yd3 full docs good http://www.sei.org/columbia/downloads/jay1.PDF http://www.sei.org/columbia/downloads/jay2.PDF

Our only hope on getting more real data on the Ingram money find is with Bruce and McPheters. I'm wondering if there were some FBI reports that were lost, or written in Portland that never got to the Seattle collection. Ckret seemed clueless about extra fragments. I thought he said the bundles were all there were. I remember because I was thinking the fragment stories in the news were wrong. (edit) looking at some of Ckret's early posts, Ckret somehow had the idea that rubber bands couldn't be preserved on Tena Bar, (say from 1974) but that they could be preserved elsewhere..i.e. some other river. I think he thought the bag was some magic preserving agent, but that sand was not as good a preserving agent. I don't know where he got this idea. Seems wrong.

Georger said "Would any of this be different if the money arrived by land vs by the river?" Why would there be fragments over a larger area, if it arrived by land?

georger said "Yes. There is a story about a boy finding a body, in a second version the body is hanging from a tree. Another crop circle story without the crop circle!" No it's not that story. It was in a news article, not a blog/forum posting.