georger

Jo, The VERTICAL distribution says D R E D G E deposit to me and to most others. Not Brian, not tides, not river currents. 377 You were there? You have read the reports? Tell us Oh Great Father of the Vertical waters - give us the Tell of how it was.

I agree. I will have to call. The dredge is one big question. The briefcase is the other. The third is where the h**l are the baggies with all these thousands pieces of Cooper money? I've never seen a pix of the evidentiary collection that displays the shard find. Has anyone else? Thanks for the correction on who the real singer-songwriter is on this thread. Mark Knoefler is one of my favorites. You did a good job Bruce. At least you are out there pounding the pavement and that is comendable. Good luck...

For instance: how much did Palmer talk about fragments, shards, or the state of the bundles Ingram found? Probably not much. Not at all. He doesnt mention the money at all. He only generalises about deterioration of objects found but not the money. It is a surprisingly brief report. More of an Abstract than a report. A summary report? The wall of reports at Portland does make me wonder. Only the FBI knows what that contained. I have stated before I spoke with several people at Portland State trying to track down any lab work or reports-documentations Palmer may have left on the Tina Bar excavation and I came up with zilch. The people I spoke with seemed very cooperative and they searched several times and could find nothing. One professor at PSU finally remarked to me: "It may not have been that important a project given everything else Leonard was involved with. He was very involved in many important projects". In my moments of frustration here Ive been a little critical. Its easy to forecast in hindsight now. There are also some observations about Tina Bar that Tom has made that I feel are accurate and worthwhile, while at the same time if the Schreuder report is valid then Tom's measurements of the money location are probably wrong and irrelevant? Thats just an opinion on my part - I also find it a little ironic that after intense discussion about what a dredge will do, we turn around and may have an example of what a dredge did do, and now we run away from that? The question in my mind is could some of that material have come from the mouth of the Lewis? I thought we had already decided - no - but I'm still wondering and curious.

I keep coming back to the notion of having just walked on to a crime scene for the first time. I look around and look at where things are: bodies, pieces of bodies, blood spatter, bullet casings, items strewn around the scene, footprints, etc etc. And I ask "what does it say"? What's the sequence of events - who did what? What happened? And all witnesses have fled the scene... so its just the physical evidence that is going to tell a story, or not. I look for the most obvious things first. If we can believe 'fragment field' at Tina bar then the nature of those frags and the field itself can only have been caused by the following: mechanical, hydrological, man-made. To simplify this let's eliminate the Mechanical Option ... Could hydrology ands man-made account for what we see? I think you would have a problem explaining the facts of the scene using "man made" and "hydrology" alone. If you chose "mechanical" you can explain everything alleged. I am ready to be proved wrong but its going to take a hell-of-lot more than Jo Weber/Sean Hannity conjectures to do so! The Maldum Fornax and Angel Udell did not create the scene at Tina Bar. And to re-ask an old question: Who was in charge? Is this a major excavation - arcaheological dig - without a Master Planner? Where's the records for this major archaeological dig!? Even the Egyptians keep records!!!

Thats just more Weber Hokum. (FOX news shit). The sky is falling! Here's a true fact: During every 24 hour period I breath in at least 2-2 atoms of oxygen that Julius Ceasar also breathed in and out. That makes me Ceasar?

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=3622324;search_string=%26quot%3Bgeologist%20palmer%20advises%26quot%3B;#3622324 misspellings like uppermpost make me think jo is quoting a georger post, also if you look at the link, she sounds like she was ranting to georger. The fragment issue is answered with this summary you posted: 'Geologist Palmer advises that he found the beach area in the vicinity where the money was found to be in approximately four different layers. The layers consisted of an upper sand layer, a post dredging sand layer, a clay lump (dredge) sand layer and below that an older sand layer. The upper layer consisted. of six inches to eight inches of reworked beach sand and is the sand which contained the fragments and bundles of the recovered money. This sand also contained soda pop cans and other debris, which were not severely damaged and/or rusted. This uppermpost layer is what I shall later describe as the 'upper active working layer' because it is most recent in aquisition showing signs of both acquisition and erosion, in the near term. The post dredging sand layer under the upper active working layer contained older soda pop cans, rusted nails and spikes, and other older rusted artifacts, which were in a much more deteriorated condition indicative of their age compared to the upper active working layer. " Palmer used 'the condition' of various metal objects found to help set a timeline and confirm his separation of strata on geological grounds. Unrusted undeteriorated objects found in the topmost layer he took as confirmation of the most recent upper working layer of sand. More rusted and more deteriorated objects found in the next presumed layer, he took as confirmation of that layer .... and so-on and so-forth down to the lowest layer exposed. "It was all subjective." So far as I know Palmer did not use any independent metric to establish a timeline at Tina Bar other than his own identification of geological strata coupled with anecdotal identification of items found and their relative state of deterioration (in the opinions of those gathered at the work site). No lab testing was done by Palmer and his associates, so far as I know - He found aluminum cans, glass, bottles or parts of bottles, nails, and msc other metal 'items'. No non-currency paper, leather, wood, roots, biological materials, or other items specific are mentioned in his report - according to my source. A briefcase is not mentioned in the Palmer Report, my source says. There is no mention of any lab work done on anything found during the excavation. Lab work was done on some of the money the Ingrams found. * I do not know if an inventory was made of the things found during the excavation. * There is one press photo which shows someone recording something in a notebook. I have no idea what those notes consisted of, whether this was an inventory being kept, drawings ... your guess is as good as mine. I dont know who the individual making those recordings in a notebook was ... * I do not know if soil samples or other evidence found at Tina Bar was kept . . .

Maybe what's at Tena Bar is the sole experiment? There is a lot of guess work, but no data. I thought you were an engineer? Why do you need a social anthropologist turned physicist to solvethis for you? average briefcase dimension back then (smllere than today's carry on size) was 19x14x6. Subtracting 1/2" for case side widths that's 18x13x5 ID. Total cubic volume = 1170 ci. $20 bill is 2.61x6.14x.0043 inches. cubic volume of one bill = 0.0689 inches. 1170/0.0689 = 16,981 x 20 = $339,622 carrying capacity in the brief case, depending on how you arrange the bills geometrically? Are you following this? Cooper was given only $200,000 = 10,000 $20 dollar gills. This means the brief case volume was more than enough to carry the whole load of cash. Now, estimate how many bills could be spread over a volume 90ft x say 20ft x 3 deep depth .... Does this begin to approximate the distribution found at Tina Bar. I think so. One brief case full of $20 bills is all it takes to create the scene at Tina Bar. Forget bag. Forget waste band. Forget pockets. If you take the evidence in front of you get one briefcase (prior bomb case) dredged up somewhere placed on Tina Bar eroding naturally over time and finally exposed ... Tom Kostinapoulous' measurements are irrelevant. Its the crime scene that matters. Its the crime scene that is speaking facts loudly. Who cares what Tom measured. The money find fragment field to depth is all that matters. All in a confined eliptical area. And the simple fact everything including the briefcase is "all chewed up" points to one source alone: the dredge. The dredge did exactly what everyone said it would - chewed everything up and spit it up then distributed by the end loader over an area to weather until top erosion exposed the sediment layer ... for Ingram tofind a few remaining bundles. That is sure how this looks. The only question is where did the dredge get it from? And how did it get to that place? And what of Cooper. And by-the-by, Jo Weber's case is now HISTORY! Her lies have been revealed. Her case is closed! And any other imposter must now adapt to the current facts which are indisputable. What we have here is an extremely strong circumstantial case complete with witnesses which a little physics will make even stronger. Compare all of this to Jo Weber's or Galen Cook's anecdotal version! lma'ze ani benyanim? what am I missing? No doubnt Jo Weber will nowcome here with a post ten miles long full of redm black red, green, purple, and blue CAPITOL LETTERS... My engineering sense tells me this distribution field, ie fragment field, was mechanically created at an earlier stage as opposed to something nature created. This confinded field is not the product of nature acting in the presence of current. If that is the case then you need something that brings all of the frags together on one confinded area - maybe Angel Udell picking up every piece of broken currency and placing each piece on Tina Bar like the ontague Mrs. Ingram wanted to make with the bills! You need a means of creating this scene as it was found. That scene definately selects for a mechanical means vrs something hydrological given the location at hand.

Did we cover fully the option that dredge debris at Tina Bar included material from some other site, specifically the mouth of the Lewis brought to Tina Bar ...? It's pretty clear in the articles the FBI was still thinking about a Lewis-Tina Bar connection if some connection could be found. Bruce failed to ask Schreuder "where" the Tina Bar material came from ....

uhh volume of money + frags = volume of brief case ? If no then that implies . . .

Himms?. Himmelsbach retired in February 1980 so far as I know, not in 1979 ? If H had retired in '79 Bruce, he wouldnt have been there to shake hands with the Ingrams in Feb 1980, now would he?

(Ckret doing the same thing with Tom Kaye?) No. Ckret is very independent and objective, and I like that about him. Ckret has to answer to people just like all of us ...

Something for Hati would be nice. Red Cross, local church, community United Way - G.

Georger: you didn't submit an expense report for the last month. please expedite. Also: still need projected expenses for this year's budget, including the "special project" with the writer. You know me and paper work, and spelling. Im doing paper work right now - but wont be in until noon tomorrow. Make that 2:00pm. (took time to write this!).

By the way - the mention of money at three feet. You had best talk to Himmelsbach yourself. He was not happy with some of the things the writer used as they were inaccurate. Anyone who has someone writing a book for them can expect these kind of things and Himmelsbach stated several times about some the facts not being accurate - this was in 1996 when I first read the book after he sent it to me. For the simple woman: "Special Agent Dorwyn Schreuder, in charge of the beach search, said some fragments were found as deep as three feet below the surface." ERG 2-13-80. Codeword: NORJAK NA-330-5756836325B - NB

[ georger, please, just ignore those posts.. she's trying to goad you, and she's succeeding. don't read what she says, keep on posting ... she is the only person here who believes what she says, whether about duane or whether about you being a plant (tho whether you are a plant of the FBI, CIA or Cook she seems to get a bit confused) calm down, take a big breath, & don't read posts that certain posters post! I didnt mind deleting the post - wasnt much in it that cant be repeated at a moment's notice when needed ... Jo's account of Duane throwing a bag of money into the Columbia during their trip now conflicts directly with the money find. Jo is upset. She sees the contradiction between her account and the facts recently revealed ... and there will be more coming. Jo is just pissed her deceptions didnt stand the test of time and 'scrutiny'. Jo has been welcomed into the real world.

That all makes sense. To add to it, I have a hard time believing that a single dredging operation produces a single coherent layer. I would think a dredging operation produces more than one distinguishable layer. Because the river bottom can't be that uniform? It's got to vary as you go deeper? I dig in dirt and see layers. In any case, the erosion/deposit issues probably are more important. Although, the comments I provided about not being allowed to replenish the beaches in later years, may say that there isn't as much deposit as you would think at the beach (although there must have been deposit at some time...the beaches weren't man-made to start with..) If rivers in my State are any example, river flow tends to strip beaches of sand then deposit it near bends and in slow areas (called sand bars) vrs. an ocean front which brings sand up on to the beach actually creating beach front before wave action moves the same sand back out ... Its a difference in current flow and direction depending on the size of the river. The Mississippi here is more like a flowing lake except in times of flood - I would assume the Columbia is a smaller example but with faster overall current due to steeper drop ... We have few reclamation projects in this State designed to replace beach sand. Instead what we have are eroded river shorelines - pure mud and Pleistocene dirt with tree roots hanging over the eroded embankments everywhere. And large beautiful sand bars at the outside bends of rivers where wildlife and humans have collected historically... I have to assume the same principle applies in WA. The rolled up ball of bills is interesting. I will look into that but for the moment Im going to assume that 'wad' was found closer to the shoreline. Palmer found nothing like that in his trench so far as I know - just fragments. Every time I go back to this subject I laugh a little because it was Himmelsbach who stated in his book: "fragments at 3 feet". So it is H himself who supported the idea of a fragment field and never denied it in any manner. It may be the 'wad' or 'ball' was where the notion of "rolling" got started, then that notion transferred to the whole money find as a kind of physical and historical explanation, since a larger explanation is missing... The "ball" probably speaks to a process that ocurred prior to the money field being buried on the bar, or during the burial process (perhaps with things being moved around by an end loader?). How would one group of bills wind up in a ball (mechanicaly) while the rest remain as open broken fragments plus a small 3 bundle stacked-cemented wad? Whatever the process it miust account for all three conditions including 'frags at three feet' (Himmeslbach was not making that up!). Lastly, lets keep in mind each bundle represented a different amount of bills. No two bundles were identical (we are told) in dollar value. The bundling occurred after the bills were recorded by guys grabing wadsof cash then banding them into bundles, and each bundle depending on size had two or more rubber bands placed around each bundle. It was quick operation ... the plane was waiting ... Al Lee was complaing, Scott was asking, Cooper began to kvetch .... and Jo Weber was sleeping in her bed sawing FBI agents zzzzzzzzz.

Georger is simply trumping up Cooks book and you guys are eating right out of his hand. Don't you know these 2 guys talk all of the time. Georger KNOWS what the Palmer report said or did the FBI loose it...like they lost the cigarrette butts! One cannot be an expert in all fields. Palmer was trained to do the job he did - and he had first hand knowledge of the money and the ground yet, a bunch of guys can get on the computer and try to change an official report. Reports can err, but there is ONE thing for certain - the money found in the COLUMBIA was protected or stored for most of those 8 yrs. The money and rubber bands could not have been directly in contact with the water and ground for more than one yr. Rather than this constant controversary - why don't one of you contact the FBI and ASK for the Palmer Report to made PUBLIC? Then you could argue this subject intelligently rather than continue to repeat yourselves. ASK yourselves WHY the PALMER REPORT has never been made public? THINK! Public knowledge of the PALMER REPORT and its contents if revealed to anyone person outside of the FBI without it becoming a part of the FIOA is MISCARRIAGE of JUSTICE and subjects the party releasing the information to anyone unauthorized person - due cause for dismissal from his or her position. Georger is talking like he has READ the Palmer Report. Then it has to be made available to ALL to read - NO interpretation can be made of the report without its availability. Ive had enough of your bullshit and have deleted my/ the whole post. Satisfied now? You trully are a spoiler! Once again the thread has been ground to a hault by the infamous JO WEBER and unless we vacate this place in favour of someplace you cant go, we wont even be able to speak our minds here - Just think of all the good things you are going to be missing now, Jo. You just fucked yourself!

My perception is slightly different. Dismissing Ckret's apparent firmness about certain things, I think he was (and still is) searching as much as we are. In fact, I think that is 50% of the reason he came here to begin with. To learn from us, throwing out what he felt or read the facts were, as best he knew ! This is a new case for Ckret. He does not have a long background in it. Ckret always said he was open to new facts, but required "proof". Behind the scenes he said this even more strongly. I think we have given him one fact: the money did not arrive in 78-79 unless there is something big I am missing.

In this moment I believe we have now passed the idea the money came in 1978,79,80. The total morphology of the money find (bundles + frags + conditions revealed) select against a monolithic late deposition 1978-1980. The money arrived earlier by some means unless there is contravening evidence. This is progress! Agree?

I dont think it was the dredge guys who talked the FBI out of a dredge deposit, but Palmer - unless the dredge folks provided measurements which show the money find was somewhere else? Leaving Palmer aside if you look at the frags and the one bundle clump, isnt that exactly what the dredge guys said would happen? Mostly bits and pieces. So what was found during the archaeological dig of Tina Bar? Lots of bits n pieces plus one small bundle stuck together with sediment found by Ingram. That sure sounds like what the dredge guys predicted should be found! (The sediment type should have clinched this). Tom Kaye says the money find location is far away from any dredge deposit. Tom Kaye bases his measurements on measurements the dredge people originally provided, and on Ingram's memory. Jerry Thomas says "all of this was already known". Nobody will cough up the coordinates of the find location! (That will cost $10,000,000 paid to Tom Kaye?) Why the fuck are Snow and I working for free!?

Orange1: what you say makes sense. But if you read all the articles about the money find, my impression is that right away Himmelsbach and others moved to this idea of money moving down streams, and how it couldn't have been the dredging because of what palmer said...and I think they just conveniently forgot or didn't document properly the other money finds. So a lot of mistaken theorizing, is just because of bad information, and bad initial deductions that got carried forward. They very quickly started mentioning the Washougal for no good reason. In fact, Himmelsbach mentioned his theory abou the edges being rounded due to wear "like sandpaper" on rocks and the bottom of streams very early. It's a totally bogus idea for how the bills ended up being rounded. to get a nice group of 30 or so, here's the google news search. Some are repetitive AP stuff. The best are ones close to Portland. http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=db+cooper+money+found&scoring=a&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&cid=4354250729586711 I think they also couldn't let go of their "calculations" that made them say Cooper jumped in the woods by Lake Merwin. Just a few thoughts: The money container may be crucial. The FBI guys talk enclosed container or bag to explain the fact of fragments and the state of the frags while Tina clearly said: "After cutting up a parachute, he emptied the sack of loot and began stuffing $20 bills into his makeshift waist pack. When Mucklow expressed astonishment at the huge pile of money, Cooper reached over and handed her a stack of bills. "We can't take tips,'' she said." "Makeshift waist pack" VRS "Bag-container". There is a huge difference in terms of protection for the money and keeping the money together as a group. Otherwise everything at T_Bar is just part of the money ... one FBI guy even says 'what was found at Tina Bar was just the central part of the money and the rest and bag had rolled and weathered away'. The FBI guys say "rolling" is fundamental to understanding the money. Tina's account also explains why the FBI finger printed the money found - because they know Cooper handled the money as per Tina's account! ___ The FBI fragment guys seem to be saying the money came on to Tina Bar with the dredge material and Palmer was just wrong ... ___ How does the money get snagged right off Tina Bar of all places to come with dredging? Did Cooper auger in to the Columbia straight to the bottom right near Tina Bar, that dredging two years later then brings the money (and nothing else!) up? ___ Any washdown theory which puts the money snagged off Tina Bar vrs a million other possible places has to account for what snagged the money at Tina Bar vrs other places ? ___ Money found in Feb 1980. Everyone struggling to explain how the money got to Tina Bar. H retires Feb 1980. H retirement party c. Feb 1980 at which time he is told for the first time, they flew EAST! Prior to this and the money find the Washougal had never been metioned? The Washougal is brought up because there is no other way to explain money being at Tina Bar that is 'consistent' with the new facts. This means a lot of experts were wrong! Computer geeks were wrong! Rat had not spoken yet but obviously agreed with Scott! The FBI had not re-interviewed Scott and Rat during the years! @@@ If a cigarette butt with Cooper's dna had been found at Tina Bar would we say the Washougal put that there!? We might as well. How about his shoes? via the Washougal if found at T-Bar? How about his footprints? via the Washougal if found at T_Bar? How far are we willing to go to keep The Washougal? ___

I tried clicking on them again, without any edits and they worked fine for me. Can everyone else get to them? (edit) I attached the 3rd. will try the 2nd/4th I can't imagine why not. But if you try again and it doesn't work I'll try attaching jpgs. Jpgs are a pain because of the size of articles and the need to compress for size but still be able to read the print. This one has small print because of it's width. Best to download and zoom to read. (edit) I attached the 2nd. It has the photo we've already posted of the screen and backhoe they used. The photo here isn't as high quality as before though. It's a rare photo. You don't see it much. I got them. Thanks.

The 2nd and 4th urls above go nowhere -

AND YOU HERD IT ON - GHOST TA GHOST. woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooeeeeeeeiii. Who's the bigger grandstander? You or Tom Kaye ?

NEW? Been covered before ad infinitum - read the thread?