DB Cooper

[georger 247]

14 hours ago, The Cooper Vortex said:

New episode out now! DB Cooper and the Mystery of Tena Bar with my good friend Ron Rovansek.

 

https://thecoopervortex.podbean.com/e/db-cooper-and-the-mystery-of-tena-bar-ron-rovansek/

 

Enjoy!

Please continue to hold for the next available representative. We are still accumulating speculation. Have a nice day. *Keep up with FOX13 News.

Edited December 10, 2024 by georger

[georger 247]

Last time I checked there were three (3) standard theories about How Money Got to Tena Bar, based on the Standard Generalised Theory of Existence on Earth.

1. By natural means. This is includes flow and other standard forces found in a river basin.

2. Burial by a person. Kaye says his evidence rules this out.

3. Dredging spoils placed on Tena Bar in 1974. Members of the public claim the cutters in the dredging pump would have destroyed everything it sucked up and pumped ... 

*Others theorize the money landed at a higher elevation than Tena Bar close to Tena Bar, and was washed and fell by force of gravity to the location where found by the Ingrams on Tena Bar.

Recently some people being interviewed about the Cooper case dont seem to have ever heard about these theories people have been discussing in forums since the year 2000 at Websleuths. These people are getting the bulk of attention these days.

 

Edited December 11, 2024 by georger

[Robert99 50]

12 hours ago, georger said:

Last time I checked there were three (3) standard theories about How Money Got to Tena Bar, based on the Standard Generalised Theory of Existence on Earth.

1. By natural means. This is includes flow and other standard forces found in a river basin.

2. Burial by a person. Kaye says his evidence rules this out.

3. Dredging spoils placed on Tena Bar in 1974. Members of the public claim the cutters in the dredging pump would have destroyed everything it sucked up and pumped ... 

*Others theorize the money landed at a higher elevation than Tena Bar close to Tena Bar, and was washed and fell by force of gravity to the location where found by the Ingrams on Tena Bar.

Recently some people being interviewed about the Cooper case dont seem to have ever heard about these theories people have been discussing in forums since the year 2000 at Websleuths. These people are getting the bulk of attention these days.

 

Georger,

Thanks for mentioning The Standard Generalized Theory of Existence on Earth and the information in items 1 and * above.

Perhaps some of the newbies here will begin to understand that most Nobel Prize winning physicists agree that water runs downhill, at least in the Portland/Vancouver area.

Good work! 

[georger 247]

3 hours ago, Robert99 said:

Georger,

Thanks for mentioning The Standard Generalized Theory of Existence on Earth and the information in items 1 and * above.

Perhaps some of the newbies here will begin to understand that most Nobel Prize winning physicists agree that water runs downhill, at least in the Portland/Vancouver area.

Good work! 

The area where the money was found is uniquely situated to receive and convey debris, because of its position surrounded by high pressure and low pressure zones. It is a high erosion zone. Historically, due to erosion, Tena Bar does not even exist. It's an artificial creation. 

It is remarkable to me that a beach erosion hydrologist, Dr. Palmer, would not have said one word about this in his report.

One salvage expert remarked to me years ago that 'if you were looking for places to check for things being conveyed down the river, Tena Bar is one of the places you would check'. This was the advice Tosaw was given and one of the reasons he financed dragging this part of the river.     

For these reasons above, I am torn about whether Cooper money was deposited because of river flow or because of the reclamation project conducted in 1974. I think it could have been either-or. This is why dating Tom's diatoms is crucial, but that seems out of reach. ?  I dont know of anything which links the money at Tena Bar to the flight path of 305 or to any conceivable drop zone... 

Will people take any of this into account?  Probably not.

Edited December 11, 2024 by georger

[georger 247]

Black Box On Line Radio Expert announces that Tom's diatoms came from the Lewis River.   (I heard it on Ryan Burns ..... ?)

Edited December 13, 2024 by georger

[FLYJACK 724]

I have decided to break my self imposed boycott for a post as DZ may be gone forever soon…

 

Here are some of my current thoughts for year 2024..  Merry Christmas.. whether you agree with these comments or not.. take em or leave em.

 

 

 

Why did Cooper try to give the stews ransom money (and other criminals do this), Simple, it taints or compromises the witnesses, are they going to be completely honest if they got some cash…  Nope. They will “obstruct” if they have taken money.

 

Dan Gryder youtube videos,,, temporarily sucking all the oxygen from the case. It is obvious to anyone with a very basic understanding of the case that the McCoy container and canopy he claims to have found do NOT match Cooper’s, not even close. It is as wrong as can be. McCoy was not Cooper, the FBI McCoy files and Cooper files are clear. The media is a sucker for these hyped stories. Gryder's 15 minutes are up. He has nowhere to go from here. Now, attacking the FBI won't go over well for credibility, he is cornered and just humiliating himself. His only allies are the fake comments left on his youtube channel praising him.. after he deletes all the legit ones. Is any publicity good publicity?

 

Andrade.. stylometry for text under 3000 words is "random noise". This is a quote from the inventor of R Stylo. I did a lot of Stylo work using R Stylo sodtware on the letters before Andrade was doing it. Dayton has no letter connection to Gunther. It is random noise there is no signal there. Stylo is useless for short text. Need 3000 words or more… Many jumped on this,, no, no, no, it is noise, no signal.

 

Gunther… Dave and I were right…  Gunther did not make it all up.. Yes, many of you were incorrect.. He was contacted by somebody claiming to be Cooper and somebody about 10 years later, that may have been a hoaxer or possibly Cooper himself. The consensus was wrong. Pro tip, never follow a consensus, especially in this case.

 

Skip Hall… NO, Look at images and he has extreme creases across his forehead and down the sides. Not one Norjak witness mentioned this and it would not be missed. Skip’s creases are severe and eliminate him. Skip is the NEO KC. Eliminated. Sorry Mr Limbach. Skip may be an interesting guy, not Cooper. NOBODY would have missed those forehead creases. Not to mention, no actual connection to NORJAK. That is not Cooper's forehead.

 

 

 

 

Cunningham.. has messed up the timestamps for the flightpath map and misled the Vortex. He has shifted the time by two minutes at the Columbia River.. 8:18 has become 8:16..  this is NOT accurate and NOT backed by any evidence. It is misleading to move Cooper’s jump time 2 minutes or 6 miles South at the Columbia. Cunningham made two distinct errors, he has speculated that the SAGE map creator marked the times off by one minute because there is an unlabelled mark is missing early in the flightpath, this is pure speculation. When the path is analyzed and the segments measured over the entire path the missing mark is irrelevant, the plane was travelling at a relatively consistent speed. It is a hard to explain but the area missing the mark has wider spaces between marks so over a larger time increment there is no change in plane speed. Second, Cunningham missed a mark N of the Columbia, look at the segment on his map before the Columbia and after, it is nearly triple the distance between minute marks,, obviously this is impossible, you can’t unsee it, the plane can’t speed up and slow down that much over that distance. Do not accept Cunningham’s recalculated flight map times they are simply not accurate and misrepresenting the evidence. 

 

This is impossible. 8:15 to 8:16 is almost 3x the distance from 8:16 to 8:17... WRONG WRONG WRONG

 

Cooper’s LZ,,, It keeps moving further South, there is no evidence for this. At 8:09 there was a mark on the FDR and pitch correction, that had to be Cooper going to the bottom of the stairs initiating drag. At 8:11, there were increasing pressure fluctuations on the gauge culminating in an extreme fluctuation felt by the crew and described as a bump. So, the key question is how long were the fluctuations to the final bump. The idea that the 8:11 fluctuations were Cooper going down the stairs doesn’t fit the evidence, if Cooper was going down the stairs at 8:11 then the plane would have pitched then and there would have been a mark on the FDR at 8:11 not 8:09. Cooper went down the stairs at 8:09 marked on the FDR.. (There is a possibility the 8:09 FDR and 8:11 fluctuations are the same thing and times got messed up, the FBI checked 8:09 time on the tape but always possible there is an error) So, the 8:11 fluctuations were not Cooper going down the stairs. I can see Cooper jumping from about 8:12 to 8:15.. and 8:15 is about Battleground. If Cooper jumped and pulled at 8:12 he could have drifted up to 6 miles N (2 minutes on map) to about 8:10, that could put him just N of the Lewis River. So, my LZ is just N of the Lewis to Battleground. The consensus moving the LZ more and more south is not based on evidence but groupthink. If Cooper jumped at 8:15 Battleground he could have drifted to about 8:13 on the map... a no pull is straight down of course but a no pull is extremely unlikely.

 

Ron, the hydrologist new to the Vortex drew a conclusion without all the TBAR information, he did have the Palmer report. TBAR is full of debris. His TBAR assumption was incorrect. 99% the money came from the River. TBAR was a debris trap.

 

The insect wing scale found on the tie appears to match a casebearing moth tough I couldn't find a SEM image for these species, there are two virtually identical species identified, one is extreme Southern US to South America, the other is virtually everywhere so no help there.

 

These are two different species. 

 

 

The fungus found on the tie matches penicillium. Everywhere, may have grown in storage after NORJAK.

 

The hair/fiber on the tie matches cashmere. This might be what they call a clue.

 

Foundry… Nope, another rabbit hole, foundries use specific sand with binders added not typical river sand like Fazio’s. That waste sand is unique to the metal used by the foundry and foundry waste sand is reused for many other purposes. My latest research indicates to me that Cooper obtained the tie weeks before the hijacking and it wasn’t from a thrift shop or anything random like that. I have matched it to a specific environment and identified a person. This includes the updated particles like Uranuim, Thorium and Mercury…  the key to understanding the tie is not to pick one or two particles and try to find a matching environment but to match the wide variety to an environment. The wide diversity of particles is the unique fingerprint. There is no way to 100% confirm the tie environment.

 

and NO, not metallurgy. Give it up.

 

The bomb expert. Interesting guy, but he concluded the bomb was likely not real mainly because the legal charge is higher using a real bomb vs fake,,, this is misleading and out of context, in 1971 hijacking was a capital offence so real or fake bomb didn't matter. The bomb question was Daren's signature line and funny because nobody really knows so answers were like a Rorschach. Most everyone said fake.. since nobody really knows why does everyone choose fake.. so I took the other side and argued it might be real on the forum just to be a contrarian..  Eventually, more people moved to possibly real. Still, nobody knows but I lean slightly REAL based on other explosive information.

 

Sketch A vs B,,, Sketch B is the most accurate, no question, I have an undisclosed Cooper image and it is close to B.. Granted B is still a composite sketch but it is more accurate than A. The FBI agrees. I can't share my evidence, if I did everyone would agree on sketch B. Don't ask.

also, witnesses liked Murphy (with the glasses and hat, not without), matches sketch B very very well. Sketch A not as well.

 

Extremely unlikely Cooper’s container was an NB6. Cossey described it as a modified NB6, 28’ round canopy. The packing card found says Pioneer, Steinthal canopy 24’ conical. So, Cossey’s description is way off. Cossey was contacted and given the description of the tan chute left in the plane so he got that one right. A round is not a conical., they are different. A 28’ can fit in a modified NB6 but the card says it was a 24’, a NB6 is a 26’ container,, would a smaller chute be put into a larger container, don't think so. Cossey isn't even close to the packing card description. Both of Hayden's chutes were Pioneer containers,, Cossey only ever referred to the one left in the plane as a Pioneer. 

What likely happened,, Cossey was contacted and asked for chutes he agreed for all 4 to be obtained from Issaquah. Emrich was getting the 4 chutes but was contacted to only get the front chest chutes as the two backs were obtained from Hayden. Emrich sent the two front chest reserves. But Cossey still believed that his back chutes were sent and used.. Cossey was contacted (he claimed the night of the hijacking) and was given the description of the back chute left behind. He then gave his description of the missing chute he believed was his NB6. It wasn’t, we know it was Hayden's. Cossey must have learned of his error soon after but never corrected the record and never supplied his packing records. So, Cossey’s description of the chute Cooper used is completely wrong and unreliable. None of it can be used. It may not even be an all white canopy. Hayden believed his chutes were the same/similar other than colour, this makes sense for a set of bailout rigs. You aren’t going to use different rigs and one modified. His tan chute left in the plane was an early 1940’s Pioneer P2-B-24.. these were mostly civilian and sometimes military use. There were similar era military versions in olive drab, that is likely what Cooper used, not a Korea era NB6. It is even possible Cooper’s chute was found but rejected due to Cossey’s misrepresentation.

 

 

Finally, the DNA as I suspected is virtually dead,, especially if the tie was not Cooper’s before the hijacking. So, how do we put a suspect on the plane. Fingerprints, but If Cooper obscured his prints that may also be dead. I am working on one last Hail Mary to forensically put a suspect on the plane, after that it will be a circumstantial case. Not ideal but that may be all we have left. 

 

Edited December 14, 2024 by FLYJACK

[georger 247]

17 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I have decided to break my self imposed boycott for a post as DZ may be gone forever soon…

 

Here are some of my current thoughts for year 2024..  Merry Christmas.. whether you agree with these comments or not.. take em or leave em.

 

 

 

Why did Cooper try to give the stews ransom money (and other criminals do this), Simple, it taints or compromises the witnesses, are they going to be completely honest if they got some cash…  Nope. They will “obstruct” if they have taken money.

 

Dan Gryder youtube videos,,, temporarily sucking all the oxygen from the case. It is obvious to anyone with a very basic understanding of the case that the McCoy container and canopy he claims to have found do NOT match Cooper’s, not even close. It is as wrong as can be. McCoy was not Cooper, the FBI McCoy files and Cooper files are clear. The media is a sucker for these hyped stories. Gryder's 15 minutes are up. He has nowhere to go from here. Now, attacking the FBI won't go over well for credibility, he is cornered and just humiliating himself. His only allies are the fake comments left on his youtube channel praising him.. after he deletes all the legit ones. Is any publicity good publicity?

 

Andrade.. stylometry for text under 3000 words is "random noise". This is a quote from the inventor of R Stylo. I did a lot of Stylo work using R Stylo sodtware on the letters before Andrade was doing it. Dayton has no letter connection to Gunther. It is random noise there is no signal there. Stylo is useless for short text. Need 3000 words or more… Many jumped on this,, no, no, no, it is noise, no signal.

 

Gunther… Dave and I were right…  Gunther did not make it all up.. Yes, many of you were incorrect.. He was contacted by somebody claiming to be Cooper and somebody about 10 years later, that may have been a hoaxer or possibly Cooper himself. The consensus was wrong. Pro tip, never follow a consensus, especially in this case.

 

Skip Hall… NO, Look at images and he has extreme creases across his forehead and down the sides. Not one Norjak witness mentioned this and it would not be missed. Skip’s creases are severe and eliminate him. Skip is the NEO KC. Eliminated. Sorry Mr Limbach. Skip may be an interesting guy, not Cooper. NOBODY would have missed those forehead creases. Not to mention, no actual connection to NORJAK. That is not Cooper's forehead.

 

 

 

 

Cunningham.. has messed up the timestamps for the flightpath map and misled the Vortex. He has shifted the time by two minutes at the Columbia River.. 8:18 has become 8:16..  this is NOT accurate and NOT backed by any evidence. It is misleading to move Cooper’s jump time 2 minutes or 6 miles South at the Columbia. Cunningham made two distinct errors, he has speculated that the SAGE map creator marked the times off by one minute because there is an unlabelled mark is missing early in the flightpath, this is pure speculation. When the path is analyzed and the segments measured over the entire path the missing mark is irrelevant, the plane was travelling at a relatively consistent speed. It is a hard to explain but the area missing the mark has wider spaces between marks so over a larger time increment there is no change in plane speed. Second, Cunningham missed a mark N of the Columbia, look at the segment on his map before the Columbia and after, it is nearly triple the distance between minute marks,, obviously this is impossible, you can’t unsee it, the plane can’t speed up and slow down that much over that distance. Do not accept Cunningham’s recalculated flight map times they are simply not accurate and misrepresenting the evidence. 

 

This is impossible. 8:15 to 8:16 is almost 3x the distance from 8:16 to 8:17... WRONG WRONG WRONG

 

Cooper’s LZ,,, It keeps moving further South, there is no evidence for this. At 8:09 there was a mark on the FDR and pitch correction, that had to be Cooper going to the bottom of the stairs initiating drag. At 8:11, there were increasing pressure fluctuations on the gauge culminating in an extreme fluctuation felt by the crew and described as a bump. So, the key question is how long were the fluctuations to the final bump. The idea that the 8:11 fluctuations were Cooper going down the stairs doesn’t fit the evidence, if Cooper was going down the stairs at 8:11 then the plane would have pitched then and there would have been a mark on the FDR at 8:11 not 8:09. Cooper went down the stairs at 8:09 marked on the FDR.. (There is a possibility the 8:09 FDR and 8:11 fluctuations are the same thing and times got messed up, the FBI checked 8:09 time on the tape but always possible there is an error) So, the 8:11 fluctuations were not Cooper going down the stairs. I can see Cooper jumping from about 8:12 to 8:15.. and 8:15 is about Battleground. If Cooper jumped and pulled at 8:12 he could have drifted up to 6 miles N (2 minutes on map) to about 8:10, that could put him just N of the Lewis River. So, my LZ is just N of the Lewis to Battleground. The consensus moving the LZ more and more south is not based on evidence but groupthink. If Cooper jumped at 8:15 Battleground he could have drifted to about 8:13 on the map... a no pull is straight down of course but a no pull is extremely unlikely.

 

Ron, the hydrologist new to the Vortex drew a conclusion without all the TBAR information, he did have the Palmer report. TBAR is full of debris. His TBAR assumption was incorrect. 99% the money came from the River. TBAR was a debris trap.

 

The insect wing scale found on the tie appears to match a casebearing moth tough I couldn't find a SEM image for these species, there are two virtually identical species identified, one is extreme Southern US to South America, the other is virtually everywhere so no help there.

 

These are two different species. 

 

 

The fungus found on the tie matches penicillium. Everywhere, may have grown in storage after NORJAK.

 

The hair/fiber on the tie matches cashmere. This might be what they call a clue.

 

Foundry… Nope, another rabbit hole, foundries use specific sand with binders added not typical river sand like Fazio’s. That waste sand is unique to the metal used by the foundry and foundry waste sand is reused for many other purposes. My latest research indicates to me that Cooper obtained the tie weeks before the hijacking and it wasn’t from a thrift shop or anything random like that. I have matched it to a specific environment and identified a person. This includes the updated particles like Uranuim, Thorium and Mercury…  the key to understanding the tie is not to pick one or two particles and try to find a matching environment but to match the wide variety to an environment. The wide diversity of particles is the unique fingerprint. There is no way to 100% confirm the tie environment.

 

and NO, not metallurgy. Give it up.

 

The bomb expert. Interesting guy, but he concluded the bomb was likely not real mainly because the legal charge is higher using a real bomb vs fake,,, this is misleading and out of context, in 1971 hijacking was a capital offence so real or fake bomb didn't matter. The bomb question was Daren's signature line and funny because nobody really knows so answers were like a Rorschach. Most everyone said fake.. since nobody really knows why does everyone choose fake.. so I took the other side and argued it might be real on the forum just to be a contrarian..  Eventually, more people moved to possibly real. Still, nobody knows but I lean slightly REAL based on other explosive information.

 

Sketch A vs B,,, Sketch B is the most accurate, no question, I have an undisclosed Cooper image and it is close to B.. Granted B is still a composite sketch but it is more accurate than A. The FBI agrees. I can't share my evidence, if I did everyone would agree on sketch B. Don't ask.

also, witnesses liked Murphy (with the glasses and hat, not without), matches sketch B very very well. Sketch A not as well.

 

Extremely unlikely Cooper’s container was an NB6. Cossey described it as a modified NB6, 28’ round canopy. The packing card found says Pioneer, Steinthal canopy 24’ conical. So, Cossey’s description is way off. Cossey was contacted and given the description of the tan chute left in the plane so he got that one right. A round is not a conical., they are different. A 28’ can fit in a modified NB6 but the card says it was a 24’, a NB6 is a 26’ container,, would a smaller chute be put into a larger container, don't think so. Cossey isn't even close to the packing card description. Both of Hayden's chutes were Pioneer containers,, Cossey only ever referred to the one left in the plane as a Pioneer. 

What likely happened,, Cossey was contacted and asked for chutes he agreed for all 4 to be obtained from Issaquah. Emrich was getting the 4 chutes but was contacted to only get the front chest chutes as the two backs were obtained from Hayden. Emrich sent the two front chest reserves. But Cossey still believed that his back chutes were sent and used.. Cossey was contacted (he claimed the night of the hijacking) and was given the description of the back chute left behind. He then gave his description of the missing chute he believed was his NB6. It wasn’t, we know it was Hayden's. Cossey must have learned of his error soon after but never corrected the record and never supplied his packing records. So, Cossey’s description of the chute Cooper used is completely wrong and unreliable. None of it can be used. It may not even be an all white canopy. Hayden believed his chutes were the same/similar other than colour, this makes sense for a set of bailout rigs. You aren’t going to use different rigs and one modified. His tan chute left in the plane was an early 1940’s Pioneer P2-B-24.. these were mostly civilian and sometimes military use. There were similar era military versions in olive drab, that is likely what Cooper used, not a Korea era NB6. It is even possible Cooper’s chute was found but rejected due to Cossey’s misrepresentation.

 

 

Finally, the DNA as I suspected is virtually dead,, especially if the tie was not Cooper’s before the hijacking. So, how do we put a suspect on the plane. Fingerprints, but If Cooper obscured his prints that may also be dead. I am working on one last Hail Mary to forensically put a suspect on the plane, after that it will be a circumstantial case. Not ideal but that may be all we have left. 

 

Magnum Opus by Flyjack ! wow!

Likewise: an AI analysis of money/bundles after they have fallen ten k feet vs. condition/structure of the 'bundles with bands still intact' at Tena Bar indicates the bagged money never dropped 10k feet to explode on impact. This means Cooper and the bagged money did NOT drop 10k feet. The condition of the money implies Cooper parachuted safely at some LZ NORTH of the Columbia. Cooper/money traveled south toward the Columbia. Only a soft landing preserves the condition of the money as it was found years later at TBar. According to a witness who worked with Tosaw, this was part of Tosaw's rational for claiming Cooper 'made a soft landing in the Columbia close to Tena Bar'.

A impromptu Cooper Support Group formed spontaneously by chance last night and then talked by conference call. We discussed the status of the case, the claim the FBI has reopened the case, the status of Blevins who is apparently moving to Missouri, transparency in CC24 aftermath, the work of Ulis and other Cooper personalities, etc. The chance meeting was very helpful and enjoyable and could be formalised to become a regular meeting, at a later date. Everyone supported the notion that the current list of personalities active in the Cooper chase, are failing to communicate and inform the public in a constructive timely way.     

BTW, no one in our group who met and talked Friday night has any information that indicates the FBI has reopened the Cooper case or intends to. ?

Edited December 14, 2024 by georger

[CooperNWO305 155]

20 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I have decided to break my self imposed boycott for a post as DZ may be gone forever soon…

 

Here are some of my current thoughts for year 2024..  Merry Christmas.. whether you agree with these comments or not.. take em or leave em.

 

 

 

Why did Cooper try to give the stews ransom money (and other criminals do this), Simple, it taints or compromises the witnesses, are they going to be completely honest if they got some cash…  Nope. They will “obstruct” if they have taken money.

 

Dan Gryder youtube videos,,, temporarily sucking all the oxygen from the case. It is obvious to anyone with a very basic understanding of the case that the McCoy container and canopy he claims to have found do NOT match Cooper’s, not even close. It is as wrong as can be. McCoy was not Cooper, the FBI McCoy files and Cooper files are clear. The media is a sucker for these hyped stories. Gryder's 15 minutes are up. He has nowhere to go from here. Now, attacking the FBI won't go over well for credibility, he is cornered and just humiliating himself. His only allies are the fake comments left on his youtube channel praising him.. after he deletes all the legit ones. Is any publicity good publicity?

 

Andrade.. stylometry for text under 3000 words is "random noise". This is a quote from the inventor of R Stylo. I did a lot of Stylo work using R Stylo sodtware on the letters before Andrade was doing it. Dayton has no letter connection to Gunther. It is random noise there is no signal there. Stylo is useless for short text. Need 3000 words or more… Many jumped on this,, no, no, no, it is noise, no signal.

 

Gunther… Dave and I were right…  Gunther did not make it all up.. Yes, many of you were incorrect.. He was contacted by somebody claiming to be Cooper and somebody about 10 years later, that may have been a hoaxer or possibly Cooper himself. The consensus was wrong. Pro tip, never follow a consensus, especially in this case.

 

Skip Hall… NO, Look at images and he has extreme creases across his forehead and down the sides. Not one Norjak witness mentioned this and it would not be missed. Skip’s creases are severe and eliminate him. Skip is the NEO KC. Eliminated. Sorry Mr Limbach. Skip may be an interesting guy, not Cooper. NOBODY would have missed those forehead creases. Not to mention, no actual connection to NORJAK. That is not Cooper's forehead.

 

 

 

 

Cunningham.. has messed up the timestamps for the flightpath map and misled the Vortex. He has shifted the time by two minutes at the Columbia River.. 8:18 has become 8:16..  this is NOT accurate and NOT backed by any evidence. It is misleading to move Cooper’s jump time 2 minutes or 6 miles South at the Columbia. Cunningham made two distinct errors, he has speculated that the SAGE map creator marked the times off by one minute because there is an unlabelled mark is missing early in the flightpath, this is pure speculation. When the path is analyzed and the segments measured over the entire path the missing mark is irrelevant, the plane was travelling at a relatively consistent speed. It is a hard to explain but the area missing the mark has wider spaces between marks so over a larger time increment there is no change in plane speed. Second, Cunningham missed a mark N of the Columbia, look at the segment on his map before the Columbia and after, it is nearly triple the distance between minute marks,, obviously this is impossible, you can’t unsee it, the plane can’t speed up and slow down that much over that distance. Do not accept Cunningham’s recalculated flight map times they are simply not accurate and misrepresenting the evidence. 

 

This is impossible. 8:15 to 8:16 is almost 3x the distance from 8:16 to 8:17... WRONG WRONG WRONG

 

Cooper’s LZ,,, It keeps moving further South, there is no evidence for this. At 8:09 there was a mark on the FDR and pitch correction, that had to be Cooper going to the bottom of the stairs initiating drag. At 8:11, there were increasing pressure fluctuations on the gauge culminating in an extreme fluctuation felt by the crew and described as a bump. So, the key question is how long were the fluctuations to the final bump. The idea that the 8:11 fluctuations were Cooper going down the stairs doesn’t fit the evidence, if Cooper was going down the stairs at 8:11 then the plane would have pitched then and there would have been a mark on the FDR at 8:11 not 8:09. Cooper went down the stairs at 8:09 marked on the FDR.. (There is a possibility the 8:09 FDR and 8:11 fluctuations are the same thing and times got messed up, the FBI checked 8:09 time on the tape but always possible there is an error) So, the 8:11 fluctuations were not Cooper going down the stairs. I can see Cooper jumping from about 8:12 to 8:15.. and 8:15 is about Battleground. If Cooper jumped and pulled at 8:12 he could have drifted up to 6 miles N (2 minutes on map) to about 8:10, that could put him just N of the Lewis River. So, my LZ is just N of the Lewis to Battleground. The consensus moving the LZ more and more south is not based on evidence but groupthink. If Cooper jumped at 8:15 Battleground he could have drifted to about 8:13 on the map... a no pull is straight down of course but a no pull is extremely unlikely.

 

Ron, the hydrologist new to the Vortex drew a conclusion without all the TBAR information, he did have the Palmer report. TBAR is full of debris. His TBAR assumption was incorrect. 99% the money came from the River. TBAR was a debris trap.

 

The insect wing scale found on the tie appears to match a casebearing moth tough I couldn't find a SEM image for these species, there are two virtually identical species identified, one is extreme Southern US to South America, the other is virtually everywhere so no help there.

 

These are two different species. 

 

 

The fungus found on the tie matches penicillium. Everywhere, may have grown in storage after NORJAK.

 

The hair/fiber on the tie matches cashmere. This might be what they call a clue.

 

Foundry… Nope, another rabbit hole, foundries use specific sand with binders added not typical river sand like Fazio’s. That waste sand is unique to the metal used by the foundry and foundry waste sand is reused for many other purposes. My latest research indicates to me that Cooper obtained the tie weeks before the hijacking and it wasn’t from a thrift shop or anything random like that. I have matched it to a specific environment and identified a person. This includes the updated particles like Uranuim, Thorium and Mercury…  the key to understanding the tie is not to pick one or two particles and try to find a matching environment but to match the wide variety to an environment. The wide diversity of particles is the unique fingerprint. There is no way to 100% confirm the tie environment.

 

and NO, not metallurgy. Give it up.

 

The bomb expert. Interesting guy, but he concluded the bomb was likely not real mainly because the legal charge is higher using a real bomb vs fake,,, this is misleading and out of context, in 1971 hijacking was a capital offence so real or fake bomb didn't matter. The bomb question was Daren's signature line and funny because nobody really knows so answers were like a Rorschach. Most everyone said fake.. since nobody really knows why does everyone choose fake.. so I took the other side and argued it might be real on the forum just to be a contrarian..  Eventually, more people moved to possibly real. Still, nobody knows but I lean slightly REAL based on other explosive information.

 

Sketch A vs B,,, Sketch B is the most accurate, no question, I have an undisclosed Cooper image and it is close to B.. Granted B is still a composite sketch but it is more accurate than A. The FBI agrees. I can't share my evidence, if I did everyone would agree on sketch B. Don't ask.

also, witnesses liked Murphy (with the glasses and hat, not without), matches sketch B very very well. Sketch A not as well.

 

Extremely unlikely Cooper’s container was an NB6. Cossey described it as a modified NB6, 28’ round canopy. The packing card found says Pioneer, Steinthal canopy 24’ conical. So, Cossey’s description is way off. Cossey was contacted and given the description of the tan chute left in the plane so he got that one right. A round is not a conical., they are different. A 28’ can fit in a modified NB6 but the card says it was a 24’, a NB6 is a 26’ container,, would a smaller chute be put into a larger container, don't think so. Cossey isn't even close to the packing card description. Both of Hayden's chutes were Pioneer containers,, Cossey only ever referred to the one left in the plane as a Pioneer. 

What likely happened,, Cossey was contacted and asked for chutes he agreed for all 4 to be obtained from Issaquah. Emrich was getting the 4 chutes but was contacted to only get the front chest chutes as the two backs were obtained from Hayden. Emrich sent the two front chest reserves. But Cossey still believed that his back chutes were sent and used.. Cossey was contacted (he claimed the night of the hijacking) and was given the description of the back chute left behind. He then gave his description of the missing chute he believed was his NB6. It wasn’t, we know it was Hayden's. Cossey must have learned of his error soon after but never corrected the record and never supplied his packing records. So, Cossey’s description of the chute Cooper used is completely wrong and unreliable. None of it can be used. It may not even be an all white canopy. Hayden believed his chutes were the same/similar other than colour, this makes sense for a set of bailout rigs. You aren’t going to use different rigs and one modified. His tan chute left in the plane was an early 1940’s Pioneer P2-B-24.. these were mostly civilian and sometimes military use. There were similar era military versions in olive drab, that is likely what Cooper used, not a Korea era NB6. It is even possible Cooper’s chute was found but rejected due to Cossey’s misrepresentation.

 

 

Finally, the DNA as I suspected is virtually dead,, especially if the tie was not Cooper’s before the hijacking. So, how do we put a suspect on the plane. Fingerprints, but If Cooper obscured his prints that may also be dead. I am working on one last Hail Mary to forensically put a suspect on the plane, after that it will be a circumstantial case. Not ideal but that may be all we have left. 

 

Good to have your insight again. 

[dudeman17 341]

 

Good to see you in here again Flyjack. Just a couple general notes:

 

23 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

A round is not a conical., they are different.

...would a smaller chute be put into a larger container, don't think so.

 

A conical is indeed a round. The difference is in the side profile. Seen from the side, a normal 'flat circular' round looks like an upside down bowl, whereas a conical looks kinda-sorta like an upside down funnel. But they are both 'round' parachutes, as seen form the top or bottom.

Within reason, a smaller canopy can be put into a larger container, as long as there is enough bulk to maintain the integrity of the pack job and keep some tension on the closing pins. It would result in a softer, more flexible rig, which would make it more comfortable for the wearer.

[georger 247]

20 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

A round is not a conical., they are different.

...would a smaller chute be put into a larger container, don't think so.

 

 

Good to see you in here again Flyjack. Just a couple general notes:

 

 

A conical is indeed a round. The difference is in the side profile. Seen from the side, a normal 'flat circular' round looks like an upside down bowl, whereas a conical looks kinda-sorta like an upside down funnel. But they are both 'round' parachutes, as seen form the top or bottom.

Within reason, a smaller canopy can be put into a larger container, as long as there is enough bulk to maintain the integrity of the pack job and keep some tension on the closing pins. It would result in a softer, more flexible rig, which would make it more comfortable for the wearer.

This is why we need experts who know what they are talking about. 

'round' refers the perspective from which parachutes are seen from,      as seen from the top or bottom. ! 

Thanks once again to Dudeman !

Edited December 15, 2024 by georger

[olemisscub 520]

On 12/13/2024 at 10:22 PM, FLYJACK said:

 

Extremely unlikely Cooper’s container was an NB6. Cossey described it as a modified NB6, 28’ round canopy. The packing card found says Pioneer, Steinthal canopy 24’ conical. So, Cossey’s description is way off. Cossey was contacted and given the description of the tan chute left in the plane so he got that one right. A round is not a conical., they are different. A 28’ can fit in a modified NB6 but the card says it was a 24’, a NB6 is a 26’ container,, would a smaller chute be put into a larger container, don't think so. Cossey isn't even close to the packing card description. Both of Hayden's chutes were Pioneer containers,, Cossey only ever referred to the one left in the plane as a Pioneer. 

What likely happened,, Cossey was contacted and asked for chutes he agreed for all 4 to be obtained from Issaquah. Emrich was getting the 4 chutes but was contacted to only get the front chest chutes as the two backs were obtained from Hayden. Emrich sent the two front chest reserves. But Cossey still believed that his back chutes were sent and used.. Cossey was contacted (he claimed the night of the hijacking) and was given the description of the back chute left behind. He then gave his description of the missing chute he believed was his NB6. It wasn’t, we know it was Hayden's. Cossey must have learned of his error soon after but never corrected the record and never supplied his packing records. So, Cossey’s description of the chute Cooper used is completely wrong and unreliable. None of it can be used. It may not even be an all white canopy. Hayden believed his chutes were the same/similar other than colour, this makes sense for a set of bailout rigs. You aren’t going to use different rigs and one modified. His tan chute left in the plane was an early 1940’s Pioneer P2-B-24.. these were mostly civilian and sometimes military use. There were similar era military versions in olive drab, that is likely what Cooper used, not a Korea era NB6. It is even possible Cooper’s chute was found but rejected due to Cossey’s misrepresentation.

Couple of thoughts. 

You don't have to modify an NB6 to put a 28 footer in there. That's Gryder nonsense because this chute he "found" has an expanded container. I'm not even sure where he came up with that. Cossey merely told Bruce that he stuffed a 28 footer in there. Didn't say anything about modifying the container to make it larger. 

I texted Lee Gossett, the rigger from the 60's, and asked him about putting 24's into NB-6's. He just said "sure, why not?"

Pioneer refers to the canopy. Packing cards from that era don't have container info. At least none that I've seen. There is something lost in translation in that Girolamo 302. Steinthal isn't mentioned yet Pioneer is. But then when we go to it being booked into evidence Pioneer is connected to the Museum chute and then Steinthal is connected to the Cooper chute. Those cards only have one slot for Manufacturer. Cooper's chute wouldn't say Pioneer AND Steinthal. Like I said, packing cards follow the canopy, not the container. Girolamo's 302 has a conflation error, I think. 

I don't see enough evidence to overrule what Cossey is saying about the Cooper chute. I can see how Hayden's description is of an NB-6. He doesn't use the verbiage "military back pack parachute" except for the Cooper chute. NB-6's are obviously of military origin but they also "look" like military chutes. It certainly looks more military than the museum chute. I don't think Hayden thought of the tan chute as a military chute at all because he adds the disclaimer that it has a military canopy inside. He doesn't make that disclaimer when discussing the Cooper chute because in his mind he's describing a military chute, so of course it has a military canopy inside. Hayden's description indicates to me that he doesn't view them the same way. I don't think he considered the tan chute to be military at all. 

Also, Cossey says he just threw a couple backpacks together. Why would he have a SET of P2-B24's to give Hayden? Those are obviously rare. NB-6's were fairly ubiquitous at that time period. Much more likely he'd have an NB-6 laying around as opposed to having a SET of WWII bailout containers. 

Edited December 15, 2024 by olemisscub

[dudeman17 341]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

You don't have to modify an NB6 to put a 28 footer in there. That's Gryder nonsense because this chute he "found" has an expanded container. I'm not even sure where he came up with that. Cossey merely told Bruce that he stuffed a 28 footer in there. Didn't say anything about modifying the container to make it larger. 

 

I think there was talk somewhere of Cossey modifying one of his rigs, but it was to move the location of the ripcord handle, ostensibly to put it more out of reach of nervous static-line students he was putting out.

[FLYJACK 724]

3 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

Good to see you in here again Flyjack. Just a couple general notes:

 

 

A conical is indeed a round. The difference is in the side profile. Seen from the side, a normal 'flat circular' round looks like an upside down bowl, whereas a conical looks kinda-sorta like an upside down funnel. But they are both 'round' parachutes, as seen form the top or bottom.

Within reason, a smaller canopy can be put into a larger container, as long as there is enough bulk to maintain the integrity of the pack job and keep some tension on the closing pins. It would result in a softer, more flexible rig, which would make it more comfortable for the wearer.

 

This is very important to get right..

I can correct both things here with better context.

I should have clarified. Both of Hayden's chutes were conical.. Cossey used the term "round" and "flat circular"...  Cossey referred to the NB6 he claimed Cooper used as a 28' "flat circular" which is NOT a "conical", these are different but is consistent with a 28' canopy.

Cossey got the shape of the canopy wrong for Cooper's chute, the size, and although both backs were Pioneer containers he only referred to one as a Pioneer. Cossey did not get Cooper's chute description right and is unreliable. Since he is the only source of the "NB6/8" description and his description was off there is no reason to believe he got that right when Hayden thought the chutes were the same but different colour. NB6's are Vietnam era, Hayden's recovered chute is early 1940's. 

It might be possible to put a smaller canopy (24') into an NB6 but it isn't something really done.. You don't normally find NB6's with 24' canopies. Cossey claimed he made the NB6 larger and even called it an NB8 at times to fit the 28'. Cooper's canopy according to the packing card was a 24'. 

We can believe the packing card info for Cooper's chute found on the plane or Cossey... not both.

Conclusion, it is extremely unlikely that Cooper used and NB6 container. It was probably an olive drab 1940's era Pioneer similar to Hayden's tan "civilian" chute.

Cossey's description of Cooper's chute (NB6) was his chute he believed was taken to Cooper from Issaquah. It wasn't.. unknown to Cossey they used Hayden's back chutes,, Cossey would have learned this error within days but never corrected it.

Edited December 15, 2024 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 724]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Couple of thoughts. 

You don't have to modify an NB6 to put a 28 footer in there. That's Gryder nonsense because this chute he "found" has an expanded container. I'm not even sure where he came up with that. Cossey merely told Bruce that he stuffed a 28 footer in there. Didn't say anything about modifying the container to make it larger. 

I texted Lee Gossett, the rigger from the 60's, and asked him about putting 24's into NB-6's. He just said "sure, why not?"

Pioneer refers to the canopy. Packing cards from that era don't have container info. At least none that I've seen. There is something lost in translation in that Girolamo 302. Steinthal isn't mentioned yet Pioneer is. But then when we go to it being booked into evidence Pioneer is connected to the Museum chute and then Steinthal is connected to the Cooper chute. Those cards only have one slot for Manufacturer. Cooper's chute wouldn't say Pioneer AND Steinthal. Like I said, packing cards follow the canopy, not the container. Girolamo's 302 has a conflation error, I think. 

I don't see enough evidence to overrule what Cossey is saying about the Cooper chute. I can see how Hayden's description is of an NB-6. He doesn't use the verbiage "military back pack parachute" except for the Cooper chute. NB-6's are obviously of military origin but they also "look" like military chutes. It certainly looks more military than the museum chute. I don't think Hayden thought of the tan chute as a military chute at all because he adds the disclaimer that it has a military canopy inside. He doesn't make that disclaimer when discussing the Cooper chute because in his mind he's describing a military chute, so of course it has a military canopy inside. Hayden's description indicates to me that he doesn't view them the same way. I don't think he considered the tan chute to be military at all. 

Also, Cossey says he just threw a couple backpacks together. Why would he have a SET of P2-B24's to give Hayden? Those are obviously rare. NB-6's were fairly ubiquitous at that time period. Much more likely he'd have an NB-6 laying around as opposed to having a SET of WWII bailout containers. 

I recall Cossey saying somewhere maybe in an interview that he modified the container for a 28' and referred to it at times as an NB8. You aren't putting a 24' in an expanded (NB6/8) and calling it an NB8. Gryder must have read that as well.

The canopy was a Steinthal, the container was a Pioneer. 

It comes down to believing the packing card or Cossey, can't be both.

We can reconcile this...

Cossey believed his back chutes were going to be used, Emrich was about to get them when they told him they only needed the fronts.. Cossey was not aware of this and assumed his back chutes were sent and his NB6 was used by Cooper, it was Hayden's. That is the reason Cossey's description is wrong and Cossey's story never made sense and changed over the years, it doesn't match the packing card and doesn't match Hayden's. Hayden's chute left behind was described to Cossey so he got that one right.

A "conical" is NOT a "flat circular".

Cossey was describing his chute not Hayden's.

 

[FLYJACK 724]

This is Cossey's interview... the tell, he says HIS PERSONAL BACKPACKS WERE GRABBED FROM THE LOFT. That is what he believed when he gave the (wrong) description of the chute Cooper used. He just never accepted or corrected it. Maybe he was just never asked and never told.

Note, he doesn't mention moving the ripcord to the other side for a harder pull, he refers to it being flatter on an NB8. HIS PERSONAL CHUTE, not Hayden's 24' missing Steinthal. 

https://www.uspa.org/about-uspa/uspa-news/the-secrets-of-db-cooper-part-one-notorious-flight-305

Gear Details
The evening of the hijacking, Cossey received another call from authorities after the jet landed in Reno, and he then learned what happened to his gear. Cossey explains, “The skydiver staying at the loft had grabbed two of my personal backpacks and two chest packs from the drop zone. One was my B-4 sport rig and the other was my Pioneer NB-8, a Navy emergency chute used for pilots.” Over the phone, Cossey learned that Cooper took his NB-8 pilot emergency backpack and that his freefall rig remained in the aircraft.

Cossey explained, “When I learned which rig was missing, I thought, ‘Oh, this guy’s crazy.’” The Navy emergency rig was specifically designed for pilots for emergency bailouts at potentially low altitudes. The round canopy did not have a sleeve or diaper to stage the opening, ensuring an extremely fast opening. “That rig has a bad opening shock. It’ll just rip your crotch apart,” Cossey said bluntly.

Aside from the opening shock, Cossey was unsure whether Cooper was even able to pull the ripcord. He explained, “The ripcords for the sport rigs were bent up so you could easily see and grab them. The Navy rig’s ripcord is designed to lie very flat so that it doesn’t catch on anything. If Cooper was wearing his raincoat, I don’t know if he’d even be able to find and pull the ripcord in the dark.”

Unlike the freefall rig, the Navy rig was significantly thinner, made of slick nylon and had absolutely no padding in the leg straps. “The differences in the rigs were obvious” Cossey said, “and anyone with any skydiving experience would definitely take the sport rig.”

However, Cossey noted, “If he had military experience, he may have used the military rig because that’s what he was familiar with. If he didn’t have any experience, he probably did some awful maneuvers going out of that plane. I’ve seen jumpers spiral violently and never recover. I don’t know if he would have even been able to regain his senses.”

 

[georger 247]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

I recall Cossey saying somewhere maybe in an interview that he modified the container for a 28' and referred to it at times as an NB8. You aren't putting a 24' in an expanded (NB6/8) and calling it an NB8. Gryder must have read that as well.

The canopy was a Steinthal, the container was a Pioneer. 

It comes down to believing the packing card or Cossey, can't be both.

We can reconcile this...

Cossey believed his back chutes were going to be used, Emrich was about to get them when they told him they only needed the fronts.. Cossey was not aware of this and assumed his back chutes were sent and his NB6 was used by Cooper, it was Hayden's. That is the reason Cossey's description is wrong and Cossey's story never made sense and changed over the years, it doesn't match the packing card and doesn't match Hayden's. Hayden's chute left behind was described to Cossey so he got that one right.

A "conical" is NOT a "flat circular".

Cossey was describing his chute not Hayden's.

 

Was Cossey ever explicitly told or questioned about Hayden's chutes ? 

Did anyone talk to Cossey before he died and try to straighten this out ?

Why didn't the FBI clear this up ?

Edited December 15, 2024 by georger

[dudeman17 341]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

This is very important to get right..

 

As I've always said, you guys are way ahead of me in detailing out the specifics of what, where, and from who as pertains to the particulars of this case. What I know about it is what I read from you guys. My goal, my 2-cent contribution is to flesh out your understanding of it with general information on parachutes and parachuting. In your first post, you said that 'rounds are not conicals, they're different'. I was pointing out that conicals are rounds. You are correct in your subsequent posts. Flat circulars and conicals are different types of rounds. Para-Commanders and similar types are also rounds, as are the T-10's and similar paratrooper canopies. Even those newer, squared-off looking T-whateverhteyares they use for low-altitude static-line paratroopers these days are round type parachutes. 'Square' refers to the ram-air inflated-wing type canopies more prevalent today.

Cossey's thing has always been a mystery. Sure, it could be an honest mistake, at the first phone call he thinks he's donating his rigs. But if those weren't actually taken, surely he would know that the next time he goes to the dropzone and finds them still there. So why doesn't he correct that knowledge? Good question? Is it possible that they did take them, but gave Hayden's rigs to Cooper? If so, that might explain Cossey's confusion, but then what happened to Cossey's rigs? ???

And sure, when the military orders a batch of NB6's, they're going to come with their matching 26' canopies. But when those rigs go to the civilian market, the riggers are free to mix-and-match things as they see fit. Putting a smaller 24' canopy in it would make it a more comfortable rig, which would likely be desirable for the civilian pilot. How common that actually was I don't know. Ryan's rigger or Jeff at Kapowsin might have an opinion on that.

[FLYJACK 724]

9 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

As I've always said, you guys are way ahead of me in detailing out the specifics of what, where, and from who as pertains to the particulars of this case. What I know about it is what I read from you guys. My goal, my 2-cent contribution is to flesh out your understanding of it with general information on parachutes and parachuting. In your first post, you said that 'rounds are not conicals, they're different'. I was pointing out that conicals are rounds. You are correct in your subsequent posts. Flat circulars and conicals are different types of rounds. Para-Commanders and similar types are also rounds, as are the T-10's and similar paratrooper canopies. Even those newer, squared-off looking T-whateverhteyares they use for low-altitude static-line paratroopers these days are round type parachutes. 'Square' refers to the ram-air inflated-wing type canopies more prevalent today.

Cossey's thing has always been a mystery. Sure, it could be an honest mistake, at the first phone call he thinks he's donating his rigs. But if those weren't actually taken, surely he would know that the next time he goes to the dropzone and finds them still there. So why doesn't he correct that knowledge? Good question? Is it possible that they did take them, but gave Hayden's rigs to Cooper? If so, that might explain Cossey's confusion, but then what happened to Cossey's rigs? ???

And sure, when the military orders a batch of NB6's, they're going to come with their matching 26' canopies. But when those rigs go to the civilian market, the riggers are free to mix-and-match things as they see fit. Putting a smaller 24' canopy in it would make it a more comfortable rig, which would likely be desirable for the civilian pilot. How common that actually was I don't know. Ryan's rigger or Jeff at Kapowsin might have an opinion on that.

You weren't wrong, I should have been more specific in my terminology... I do that sometimes trying to recall specific things.. this issue is complex and not easy to convey clearly. There is a ton of info, nuance and detail that gets overwhelming to write out...  I have 10,000 files on this... and I am having a hard time keeping everything straight.

Cossey used "round" and "flat circular" to describe the 28' canopy.

A "flat circular" is consistent with a 28' and it is not a 24' "conical" as described by the packing card.

Remember Cossey referred to it as a modified NB6 and an NB8, that does NOT match a 24' canopy.

An analogy might be putting wider wheels on your car but narrower tires,, yeah it is possible but not really done. I have not been able to find a 24' in an normal NB6 or as Cossey called his an NB8. In regards to Cossey it makes no sense for a 24' to be in an "NB-8".. it just didn't happen.

Of all things I posted in that long comment I thought this was the least controversial...

I am 100% on this, Cossey believed his personal NB6 was used by Cooper, he was describing that rig, not Hayden's. His description conflicts with the packing card for the missing chute and Hayden's description.

The light bulb moment was reading that Emrich was about to grab 4 chutes, 2 backs and 2 fronts for  The Loft but was contacted and told to only send the fronts as they had secured Hayden's chute.

Hayden said his missing chute was Olive Drab,,, NB6's are Sage Green.

Hayden needed a pair of cheap bailout rigs to meet regulations, he never intended to use them, it make sense that he bought two similar cheap WW2 era container vs one newer premium modified NB6.

So, Cossey sitting at home quite reasonably believed that Cooper got his personal back chutes from Issaquah. He was told a tan chute was left so he assumed Cooper took his personal NB6/8. Cossey would have figured this error out within days but never clarified. 

Cossey would have checked his packing records and known he got it wrong. He never gave the FBI his records as that would have exposed his error. He even told the FBI that he gave them everything he had, the FBI said they never got them. Cossey was being considered to jump the test recreation, if he came clean and said he got the chute wrong he would have lost cred.. Ultimately, he wasn't use for the test and was not happy with the FBI.

This is solid. Put all the pieces together and test it. That is the only explanation for all the inconsistencies. 

So, Cossey screwed the FBI, screwed Carr, screwed the media, screwed researchers and the Vortex...

The takeaway is the FBI was looking for the wrong chute and it may have been found and rejected,, that probably wouldn't have given us Cooper's identification but it would have helped.

 

We can no longer say nothing was found,,,  WE don't know. This is a big deal.

I have looked at the found chutes in the files and there is no way to assess them. Cossey screwed everything.

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 724]

9 hours ago, georger said:

Was Cossey ever explicitly told or questioned about Hayden's chutes ? 

Did anyone talk to Cossey before he died and try to straighten this out ?

Why didn't the FBI clear this up ?

Cossey still claimed they were his chutes. Some took that to mean his before they were sold to Hayden.

I did find a news article where Cossey admitted that the chutes came from Hayden.

Cossey's stories changed and conflicted over the years.. he told different stories to different people.

 

If he thought his chutes were being sent to Cooper when did he learn that Hayden's chutes were used??

We don't know. 

[FLYJACK 724]

Skip Hall is eliminated..  let's be real and stop wasting time.

Some suspects/POI's can be eliminated easily others can't without more information. It is actually difficult to eliminate most suspects..

Skip is easy to eliminate.

You need to be honest here, Hall's forehead is not Cooper's, no witness mentioned those severe lines and they are SEVERE.. That is so unique it would never be missed. He might as well have had a tattoo on his forehead.

Hahneman's missing teeth in context. Don't believe everything you hear. Only one person out of about 50 made that claim.

You cannot explain any plausible way for all NORJAK witnesses to miss Skip Hall's extremely creased forehead. 

Once you see it you can't unsee it.

I know many people are friends of Limbach or Cunningham and that may cause them to avoid being critical, but you know I am right.

If people want to treat the Vortex as a social club that is fine,, it is not my thing. If I see something that obvious I'll point it out, it isn't personal...  You want to got down rabbit holes for entertainments sake, go ahead.

also, Skip's scar on the cheek may have been temporary, so it can be plausibly explained and not dispositive whereas the severe forehead lines cannot be explained...

Edited December 15, 2024 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 724]

Dan Gryder's found chute,,

Ryan nailed it in his videos, I don't know where he gets the patience but it is not even an NB6...

It is an AF B-4 harness and that might be a B-12 container..

Similar to this..

and similar... the one on the right, notice it is a converted right side pull (the left one is an earlier version)

That 1943 Hayes canopy Dan Gryder is claiming was Cooper's was not..  it was a 1960 Steinthal.

 

So, the crazy irony of all this mess is that Gryder claims it matches Cossey's NB6/8, it doesn't and Cossey claimed his personal NB6 was used by Cooper, it wasn't... (In time everyone will see this)

We have two compounding and intertwined layers of misinformation from Cossey and Gryder...  this is difficult to explain to non Cooper experts.

 

Now that Gryder has disparaged and blamed the FBI for lies and a coverup, he has nowhere to go but down...that was the death throes of a failing narrative and peak Dan Gryder.

 

No Dan Gryder, when you read this.. that wasn't Cooper's canopy or container.. easily debunked... and McCoy wasn't Cooper, you didn't solve the case you made a fool of yourself on national media. 

 

The McCoy kids seem sincere but don't know the two hijacking cases very well. McCoy was not Cooper.

 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 520]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Cossey still claimed they were his chutes. Some took that to mean his before they were sold to Hayden.

I did find a news article where Cossey admitted that the chutes came from Hayden.

Cossey's stories changed and conflicted over the years.. he told different stories to different people.

 

If he thought his chutes were being sent to Cooper when did he learn that Hayden's chutes were used??

We don't know. 

Well, but Cossey never once is quoted in the FBI Files as stating they were his chutes. Quite the opposite. He mentions Hayden multiple times in the files. 

 

I just don't really see any reason to doubt his claim that it was an NB-6 that he gave Hayden. Again, they were fairly ubiquitous at the time, and still are. Look at what deep dives you and I have done trying to find examples of this P2-B24. Yet at any given time there are 20 NB-6's on sale on ebay. What are the odds Cossey had two rare WWII bailout rigs to give Hayden? And like I said, Hayden didn't seem to think they were identical. If they were identical containers he'd have said so. 

Hayden describing them as Olive Drab isn't a big deal to me either. I own two NB-6's and if someone asked me what color they were I'd also say Olive Drab. That's the color I instinctively think of when I think of that greenish military color. 

For me the only Cossey inconsistency within the files (we can ignore everything he ever said to the media) is why both he AND Hayden state it was a 28 foot canopy when the packing card says 24. 

Edited December 15, 2024 by olemisscub

[olemisscub 520]

55 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

No Dan Gryder, when you read this.. that wasn't Cooper's canopy or container.. easily debunked... and McCoy wasn't Cooper, you didn't solve the case you made a fool of yourself on national media. 

 

He's about to REALLY be made a fool by the end of today. Get your popcorn ready, folks. 

[Robert99 50]

21 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Dan Gryder's found chute,,

Ryan nailed it in his videos, I don't know where he gets the patience but it is not even an NB6...

It is an AF B-4 harness and that might be a B-12 container..

Similar to this..

and similar... the one on the right, notice it is a converted right side pull (the left one is an earlier version)

That 1943 Hayes canopy Dan Gryder is claiming was Cooper's was not..  it was a 1960 Steinthal.

 

So, the crazy irony of all this mess is that Gryder claims it matches Cossey's NB6/8, it doesn't and Cossey claimed his personal NB6 was used by Cooper, it wasn't... (In time everyone will see this)

We have two compounding and intertwined layers of misinformation from Cossey and Gryder...  this is difficult to explain to non Cooper experts.

 

Now that Gryder has disparaged and blamed the FBI for lies and a coverup, he has nowhere to go but down...that was the death throes of a failing narrative and peak Dan Gryder.

 

No Dan Gryder, when you read this.. that wasn't Cooper's canopy or container.. easily debunked... and McCoy wasn't Cooper, you didn't solve the case you made a fool of yourself on national media. 

 

The McCoy kids seem sincere but don't know the two hijacking cases very well. McCoy was not Cooper.

 

 

There is no physical evidence that an NB-6 parachute rig, or any component of an NB-6 rig, was involved in the Cooper hijacking.  This nonsense originated in claims made by Cossey but does not have any factual basis.

Hayden has said that the two backpacks he passed to the FBI were similar.  They were assembled by Cossey from military surplus parts, some of which may have been previously used.

The Hayden backpack that is at the WSHM does not have an NB-6 harness, it does not have an NB-6 container, it does not have an NB-6 pilot chute, and it does not have an NB-6 canopy.  This can be determined by just looking at the pictures of it.

In the 1960-1970 timeframe, I owned a genuine and totally NB-6 emergency parachute rig and wore it when flying certain aircraft that had very cramped cockpits. The NB-6 rigs were several times more expensive than the Hayden backpack rigs.

The NB-6 conical parachute canopy has several construction features that are different from other canopies.  There are also differences in the NB-6 container and pilot chute construction.  I have posted several detailed explanations of these differences here over the last 15 years.

The solution to the non-existent Cooper parachute "problem" is simple.  JUST IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT COSSEY SAID.

Also, I have never seen a military personnel parachute that had a "low speed" rating.  If the recently found canopy in North Carolina has such a restriction, then it is probably not a military canopy in the first place.

 

 

[olemisscub 520]

4 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

There is no physical evidence that an NB-6 parachute rig, or any component of an NB-6 rig, was involved in the Cooper hijacking.  This nonsense originated in claims made by Cossey but does not have any factual basis.

Hayden has said that the two backpacks he passed to the FBI were similar.  They were assembled by Cossey from military surplus parts, some of which may have been previously used.

The Hayden backpack that is at the WSHM does not have an NB-6 harness, it does not have an NB-6 container, it does not have an NB-6 pilot chute, and it does not have an NB-6 canopy.  This can be determined by just looking at the pictures of it.

 

No one ever claimed the museum chute was an NB6, so not sure of your point there.

Hayden also didn't say they were identical or that similar. He clearly described them different because they looked differently to him. 

Cossey's only inconsistency in the FBI Files from what we think we know is the canopy size. 

If you ignore everything he ever said to the media, then I don't see any reason to doubt what he told the FBI.