DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 724]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

And I’ll still be here waiting to see a packing card that has two manufacturers listed on it. 

I would be far more willing to believe your version if Hayden didn’t also say it was a 28 footer. We know his description of the museum chute is very accurate, so why would his Cooper chute description also be off?

Packing card formats are meant for rigs that have the original canopy, I found lots of them with the same brand canopy and container with the container model description. No need to mention the same manufacturer...  Original rigs have the canopy on the container label... so they can be identified from the outside. Rigs that have had the canopy brand changed are custom and will be incredibly difficult to find a packing card for now, let alone one in the same format as Hayden's. If the container and canopy are the same brand, as most were unless custom, there was no need to to indicate both.

Since the container that the card was in did not say Pioneer maybe the guy saw Pioneer on the harness and wrote that down..  who knows,,,

You are setting a criteria that is both unreasonable and irrelevant to the issue. Since, Packing cards vary a lot in format and by rigger and it was a miracle I found one in the same format... it does have the container model on it and I found many others that do as well. Finding a vintage rig packing card that has had the canopy changed would be both difficult and irrelevant.

This one is interesting because it says "Pioneer Back", that is the container. The original canopy would also be Pioneer.

Hayden's 28 ft error was unfortunate but also irrelevant. 

It was one single error, he did not have the rig in front of him and we don't even know if was Hayden's error... maybe a typo.

It doesn't match the card so 28' is wrong.

You are nitpicking at things that would help slightly but are really irrelevant to the issue.

Cossey and the card CANNOT both be true.. that is just a fact. That is the issue,,,

You still want both to be true,, 

 

You can pick and poke around the irrelevant perimeter, but can't reconcile the real issue.

 

 

[FLYJACK 724]

19 minutes ago, dudeman17 said:

Another inconsistency is that Cossey says he was contacted later that night after the plane landed in Reno, and when they described the chute left on the plane, he deduced that Cooper took his bailout rig. But they would have described Hayden's rig, which wouldn't match his sport rig? So why didn't he question that?

 

Is that documented? Is it possible that Emrich did send Cossey's back rigs (but they still gave Hayden's to Cooper)? That might extend the time that Cossey still thinks it's his rigs that were given.

-----------------

They could have said we found a "tan back pack"...  "a Pioneer" from the harness. Cossey thinks, right that must be my Pioneer B-4 freefall rig,,,   They didn't know the model or that it was a bailout rig, not a sport rig. The first people to find the chutes probably didn't know anything about parachutes. 

Yes, the Emrich thing is documented, I posted it earlier. No, he only sent the two fronts.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2024 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 520]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Hayden's 28 ft error was unfortunate but also irrelevant. 

It was one single error, he did not have the rig in front of him and we don't even know if was Hayden's error... maybe a typo.

It doesn't match the card so 28' is wrong.

You are nitpicking at things that would help slightly but are really irrelevant to the issue.

Cossey and the card CANNOT both be true.. that is just a fact. That is the issue,,,

You still want both to be true,, 

Hayden isn’t irrelevant at all. If you have two different people saying the same thing, then that should at least keep us open to the possibility, though perhaps slim, that the 24 foot card isn’t from Cooper’s chute and has some other weird explanation. 

And really, Hayden’s description is not only relevant, it may be more relevant than Cossey’s since he had the things in his possession hours earlier. Plus, you can doubt the veracity of Cossey’s claims, but we know for 100% certainty that other information Hayden provided was accurate.

 

Edited December 21, 2024 by olemisscub

[olemisscub 520]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Since the container that the card was in did not say Pioneer maybe the guy saw Pioneer on the harness and wrote that down...

This is what I’m thinking. Both packing cards seem to have the same data set on them. This makes sense because Cossey was assembling these from scratch, thus they’d have new packing cards. We can see on the museum card that Cossey was indeed using a new card. I think it’s reasonable to think that both cards are the same type of card. 

[dudeman17 341]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

They could have said we found a "tan back pack"...  "a Pioneer" from the harness. Cossey thinks, right that must be my Pioneer B-4 freefall rig,,,   They didn't know the model or that it was a bailout rig, not a sport rig. The first people to find the chutes probably didn't know anything about parachutes. 

Yes that's all true but what I was thinking is that Cossey's rig would most likely be green. I guess it depends when they started making B-4's. All the old skydiving movies I've seen from the 60's - early 70's, the vast majority of gutter gear rigs are that military green, so that tan rig would be an outlier. You're better at detailed internet searches than I am, but what I found was a lot of older rigs from the 40's were that tan color, but the earliest B-4 I found was a '52 and it was still green.

[FLYJACK 724]

7 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Hayden isn’t irrelevant at all. If you have two different people saying the same thing, then that should at least keep us open to the possibility, though perhaps slim, that the 24 foot card isn’t from Cooper’s chute and has some other weird explanation. 

And really, Hayden’s description is not only relevant, it may be more relevant than Cossey’s since he had the things in his possession hours earlier. Plus, you can doubt the veracity of Cossey’s claims, but we know for 100% certainty that other information Hayden provided was accurate.

 

Hayden's 28' comment is irrelevant because Cossey's description and the packing card are still incompatible.. both cannot be true.

I have used evidence to reconcile that,, YOU can't reconcile it and YOU can't claim Cossey was correct as there is ZERO corroboration for his NB6 claim, his description only conflicts.

Ryan, seriously, you have avoided the real issue by tossing in peripheral doubts.

The only argument you make is that packing card was not Hayden's missing chute.. you can't do it.

If Cossey was a witness in court his claim would shredded and tossed.

[FLYJACK 724]

7 hours ago, olemisscub said:

This is what I’m thinking. Both packing cards seem to have the same data set on them. This makes sense because Cossey was assembling these from scratch, thus they’d have new packing cards. We can see on the museum card that Cossey was indeed using a new card. I think it’s reasonable to think that both cards are the same type of card. 

Both cards were new to Cossey and the same. 

The problem is rigs originally came with the same manufacturer for the container and the canopy so there was no need to distinguish.. Custom rigs that had the canopy changed would have been less common..

Fact is, some packing cards did have container info written on them.. 

If the Pioneer tan civilian chute had a Pioneer canopy then only Pioneer is needed on the card.

If a canopy was changed to a different manufacturer it is reasonable to write both on the card.

Whether that happened or not, it doesn't change the fact that the card is still incompatible with Cossey..

Cossey later claimed the NB6/8 was a Pioneer... 

[FLYJACK 724]

7 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

Yes that's all true but what I was thinking is that Cossey's rig would most likely be green. I guess it depends when they started making B-4's. All the old skydiving movies I've seen from the 60's - early 70's, the vast majority of gutter gear rigs are that military green, so that tan rig would be an outlier. You're better at detailed internet searches than I am, but what I found was a lot of older rigs from the 40's were that tan color, but the earliest B-4 I found was a '52 and it was still green.

This is interesting because Hayden's tan container was a civilian model. Claimed to have a military canopy but we don't have that info. Clearly it was a bailout rig and not freefall.

Since Cossey kept calling it "the pioneer" if they called it a "Pioneer" (from the harness) that may have been all he needed.

Later, Cossey was shown the rigs left in the plane.

A possible clue..

This doc from the 26th... 

It has the description of the front chute, that must have come from Cossey, in fact it was in a doc on the 25th as well.

But, look at the description of the missing back chute,, it doesn't fully match Cossey or hayden.. it looks like a conflation of both. Maybe they conflated Hayden and Cossey from the evening of the 24th. Understandable that the owner and source of the back packs could get mixed up. 

That would explain the 28' error from Hayden and Hayden's disagreement with the FBI descriptions attributed to him.

Olive drab, 50 foot tan cotton harness?? It is like part Cossey and part Hayden..

"Olive" came from Hayden. Cossey claimed Sage Green NOT olive. 

 

Edited December 21, 2024 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 520]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Hayden's 28' comment is irrelevant because Cossey's description and the packing card are still incompatible.. both cannot be true.

I have used evidence to reconcile that,, YOU can't reconcile it and YOU can't claim Cossey was correct as there is ZERO corroboration for his NB6 claim, his description only conflicts.

Ryan, seriously, you have avoided the real issue by tossing in peripheral doubts.

The only argument you make is that packing card was not Hayden's missing chute.. you can't do it.

If Cossey was a witness in court his claim would shredded and tossed.

If the provenance of that additional packing card could not be demonstrated (which is my entire argument), then Cossey's description and Hayden's description (which match) would have heavy evidentiary value as they are both primary sources. 

My issue with your thesis is that it would have done Cossey no harm to be like "my bad, I thought it was my chute yesterday when we first spoke. Now that I know it's the one I made for Hayden, here is the correct description." Cossey would have had no reason to obfuscate the truth here. Why? Because he was embarrassed over a mistake? Nah. I imagine Cossey, like most people, thought this stuff (and Cooper) would be picked up rather quickly. So it would have served him no purpose to turn a mistake into a 30 year lie that might be exposed at any time. 

[Robert99 50]

12 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

 

A nitpick, but I & R stands for Inspect & Repack. Any repairs would be noted separately.

Let's not make a federal case out of this but take a look at the card in FlyJack's post #63951.

The heading for the column where "I & R" is listed is "Repairs and : or Remarks".  The word repack is not mentioned but is undoubtedly included in the "I & R" service.

[olemisscub 520]

The Girolamo 302 was butchered somewhere. Agent took crappy notes or something was lost in transcription. I doubt that Pioneer OR Conical are references to the Cooper chute. 

Also, "conical type commercial parachute" sounds like someone describing the museum chute. It's not like "commercial parachute" would be written on a packing card anywhere. Girolamo, being military, probably didn't recognize the museum chute as being some old military rig because of its color and also the modern harness.

[FLYJACK 724]

Just now, olemisscub said:

If the provenance of that additional packing card could not be demonstrated (which is my entire argument), then Cossey's description and Hayden's description (which match) would have heavy evidentiary value as they are both primary sources. 

My issue with your thesis is that it would have done Cossey no harm to be like "my bad, I thought it was my chute yesterday when we first spoke. Now that I know it's the one I made for Hayden, here is the correct description." Cossey would have had no reason to obfuscate the truth here. Why? Because he was embarrassed over a mistake? Nah. I imagine Cossey, like most people, thought this stuff (and Cooper) would be picked up rather quickly. So it would have served him no purpose to turn a mistake into a 30 year lie that might be exposed at any time. 

Right, well it is always speculative to ascribe motive or know what is inside somebody's head. People do things for many reasons that seem irrational.

You can't claim he would have said something.. therefore it didn't happen.

 

But some things to consider why Cossey might not correct his error..

We know that Cossey lies. He lied to FBI agent Carr. He lied about his records.

Didn't Bruce talk to somebody who lnew Cossey and they said he was a serial liar... I recall something like that.

Did he get paid for consulting? or did he expect to?

We know Cossey wanted to be part of this and jump in the test. He was not happy that he did not. Grudge.

Cossey had a reputation of being an expert and the go to parachute guy.. admitting his error jeopardized his reputation.

Cossey was caught up in the attention and excitement.

In the confusion over the chute ownership, nobody ever asked him to clarify.. Sort of, if nobody asks he wouldn't mention it. Remember, he never supplied his records and even claimed he had, that is an attempt to cover his error.

 

Another clue,

The Olive Drab description attributed to Hayden early morning of the 25th at 2:50 AM does not mention "flat circular"... that document process starts at 12:25 AM....

Cossey claimed he was called on the evening of the 24th,,, suggests before Hayden..

 

Then on the 25th the Olive Drab description now has "flat circular" added...  That suggests "flat circular" came from Cossey not Hayden. Olive Drab came from Hayden. Cossey rejected "Olive" and used "flat circular" to describe the missing chute.

 

[olemisscub 520]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Cossey claimed he was called on the evening of the 24th,,, suggests before Hayden..

 

Well but we know that isn't true because on AM of the 25th they were still looking for Cossey for the first time. 

[FLYJACK 724]

3 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

The Girolamo 302 was butchered somewhere. Agent took crappy notes or something was lost in transcription. I doubt that Pioneer OR Conical are references to the Cooper chute. 

Also, "conical type commercial parachute" sounds like someone describing the museum chute. It's not like "commercial parachute" would be written on a packing card anywhere. Girolamo, being military, probably didn't recognize the museum chute as being some old military rig because of its color and also the modern harness.

But it also says 1960.... matching the Steinthal date not the rig left on the plane..

Even if "Pioneer" was inadvertently added to that description, there is still conflict and no corroboration of Cossey's claim,, NONE

and oddly, Cossey later called the missing chute a Pioneer....

[FLYJACK 724]

4 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Well but we know that isn't true because on AM of the 25th they were still looking for Cossey for the first time. 

FALSE,, That doesn't prove that he didn't talk to somebody briefly the evening before. 

I know it isn't confirmed but Cossey had to be contacted between the evening of the 24th and sometime the 25th before late afternoon.. by somebody.

Takeaway is "flat circular" was added on the 25th not from Hayden and Cossey acknowledged aerobatic chutes on the 26th.

[Robert99 50]

24 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

FALSE,, That doesn't prove that he didn't talk to somebody briefly the evening before. 

I know it isn't confirmed but Cossey had to be contacted between the evening of the 24th and sometime the 25th before late afternoon.. by somebody.

Takeaway is "flat circular" was added on the 25th not from Hayden and Cossey acknowledged aerobatic chutes on the 26th.

Does anyone know what type of aerobatic aircraft Hayden owned?

[olemisscub 520]

27 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

FALSE,, That doesn't prove that he didn't talk to somebody briefly the evening before. 

I know it isn't confirmed but Cossey had to be contacted between the evening of the 24th and sometime the 25th before late afternoon.. by somebody.

Takeaway is "flat circular" was added on the 25th not from Hayden and Cossey acknowledged aerobatic chutes on the 26th.

let’s really break this down. That 11-25-71 4:53 PM NITEL description looks like a bad conflation of Hayden’s earlier descriptions. The only phrase missing from this conflated  description that wasn’t explicitly in Hayden’s first description is “flat circular.” Everything else is Hayden. “Olive drab”, “civilian luxury type”, etc. All Hayden. Where is “NB-6” or “Sage green” or a description of the dummy chute? This bonkers document is describing the recovered chest pack as being the missing chest pack. I don’t see anything in this document that indicates that it had to come from Cossey. Quite the opposite, actually. 
 

 

Then we have what I believe is Cossey’s ACTUAL first statement to the FBI being reported as 6:22 PM on 11/26/71. This is the first time in the files that we see Cossey’s terms used to describe the backpack like “NB-6”, “non-steerable”, “nylon” “Sage green”, “no d-rings”. If they had spoken to him earlier then at least a few of those terms should be showing up in the descriptions from the 25th. It’s also the first time we learn about the dummy chute. If they had interviewed Cossey earlier, they would have had a clearer picture of the chest packs and would have known about the dummy chute already. 
 

[FLYJACK 724]

20 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

let’s really break this down. That 11-25-71 4:53 PM NITEL description looks like a bad conflation of Hayden’s earlier descriptions. The only phrase missing from this conflated  description that wasn’t explicitly in Hayden’s first description is “flat circular.” Everything else is Hayden. “Olive drab”, “civilian luxury type”, etc. All Hayden. Where is “NB-6” or “Sage green” or a description of the dummy chute? This bonkers document is describing the recovered chest pack as being the missing chest pack. I don’t see anything in this document that indicates that it had to come from Cossey. Quite the opposite, actually. 
 

 

Then we have what I believe is Cossey’s ACTUAL first statement to the FBI being reported as 6:22 PM on 11/26/71. This is the first time in the files that we see Cossey’s terms used to describe the backpack like “NB-6”, “non-steerable”, “nylon” “Sage green”, “no d-rings”. If they had spoken to him earlier then at least a few of those terms should be showing up in the descriptions from the 25th. It’s also the first time we learn about the dummy chute. If they had interviewed Cossey earlier, they would have had a clearer picture of the chest packs and would have known about the dummy chute already. 
 

That 26th Cossey interview was in person...

They had to have contacted him by phone before that.

Where did the details for the missing chest chute come from in this 25th doc.. Cossey.

Edited December 21, 2024 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 724]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

Does anyone know what type of aerobatic aircraft Hayden owned?

I think it was a T-28A,, can't confirm the dates owned but tracked an N number to Hayden then found a match was a T-28A in 1971...  He may have had more than one plane over the years, but these were obtained by civilians for aerobatics in the 1960's. Two seater.

So, probably a T-28A, not 100% certain.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_T-28_Trojan

 

Later, he had a Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver 

 

Edited December 21, 2024 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 520]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

That 26th Cossey interview was in person...

They had to have contacted him by phone before that.

Where did the details for the missing chest chute come from in this 25th doc.. Cossey.

 

That description had to have come from Emrich, whom we know they were able to get in touch with on the 25th.   

Ok, Fly, for the love of all that is good and holy in the Vortex, you gotta, for once in a Cooper debate, give me the W on this one. 

This couldn’t be any more clear. The FBI didn’t talk to Cossey until the 26th. They are very obviously pissed that they’ve been unable to speak to him despite the news media being able to
 

 

Edited December 21, 2024 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 724]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

That description had to have come from Emrich, whom we know they were able to get in touch with on the 25th.   

Ok, Fly, for the love of all that is good and holy in the Vortex, you gotta, for once in a Cooper debate, give me the W on this one. 

This couldn’t be any more clear. The FBI didn’t talk to Cossey until the 26th. They are very obviously pissed that they’ve been unable to speak to him despite the news media being able to
 

 

No W... I am very familiar with that file.. I posted it long ago..

It does not mean somebody didn't talk to Cossey later on the 25th or even the evening before..

"flat circular" was Cossey's description, not Hayden in a 25th dated file.

Why would that description come from Emrich.. it was Cossey's dummy chute he mistakenly sent. 

Cossey's interview on the 26th was in person.. that can't be the first contact.

Edited December 22, 2024 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 520]

7 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

No W... I am very familiar with that file.. I posted it long ago..

It does not mean somebody didn't talk to Cossey later on the 25th or even the evening before..

Why would that description come from Emrich.. it was Cossey's dummy chute he mistakenly sent. 

Cossey's interview on the 26th was in person.. that can't be the first contact.

This simply isn't complicated. The first time NB-6 enters the lexicon is later in the afternoon on November 26th, a full day AFTER he has told the media that they came from Hayden. You cannot make your case that Cossey thought they were his backpacks and thus gave an erroneous "NB-6 statement" without rank speculation. Actual case documents and media from 1971 do not support your contention. If Cossey had spoken to them at any time, then it would have been documented. As it is, we have multiple documents saying "where the fuck is this guy?" Nothing about "re-contacting Cossey". 

 

[Robert99 50]

5 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I think it was a T-28A,, can't confirm the dates owned but tracked an N number to Hayden then found a match was a T-28A in 1971...  He may have had more than one plane over the years, but these were obtained by civilians for aerobatics in the 1960's. Two seater.

So, probably a T-28A, not 100% certain.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_T-28_Trojan

 

Later, he had a Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver 

 

FlyJack, thanks for the information.  The T-28A was indeed in civilian hands in the 1960s and was fully acrobatic.  When it was used in military pilot training by the USAF and Navy I believe it was the second military aircraft that the trainees would encounter.  I don't remember what the initial aircraft the USAF trainees encountered but I think it was the Beech T-34 that the Navy trainees flew.

The T-28A could accommodate both seat and backpack parachutes and didn't need a thin backpack such as the NB-6 or NB-8.  This is another reason why there was no point in Hayden paying two or three times as much for an NB-6 as he paid for the parachute that is now at the WSHM.

I knew a fellow who owned a T-28A in the early 1960s but never got a ride in it.  While in the military, I did get some flying time as a passenger in the DeHavilland beaver.

Thanks again. 

[FLYJACK 724]

48 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

This simply isn't complicated. The first time NB-6 enters the lexicon is later in the afternoon on November 26th, a full day AFTER he has told the media that they came from Hayden. You cannot make your case that Cossey thought they were his backpacks and thus gave an erroneous "NB-6 statement" without rank speculation. Actual case documents and media from 1971 do not support your contention. If Cossey had spoken to them at any time, then it would have been documented. As it is, we have multiple documents saying "where the fuck is this guy?" Nothing about "re-contacting Cossey". 

 

Nope. 

It isn't rank speculation.. it fits the evidence.

and it reconciles the Cossey vs packing card conflict.

because an agent was unable to contact Cossey on the 25th before 3:30 doesn't mean another person didn't or the evening before..

I don't know why but you have this all backwards. the burden is to prove Cossey's NB6 claim is true....   there is nothing that can do that.

It is a claim by a guy who lies and obfuscates to everyone including FBI agents.

I only found a reconciliation that fits within the evidence...

Even if you don't want to accept it. You still can't reconcile the descriptions.. you can't do it.

 

You can't accept Cossey's description as true without some corroboration and there is none..

That is the elephant in the room, that is what you keep avoiding it.

It is really absurd that you accept Cossey's NB6 claim...  but reject everything else from him..

Cossey's claim has zero credibility.

You want it to be an NB6 for some reason, but there is no proof... only conflicts. If you were being objective you would see that.

Edited December 22, 2024 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 724]

5 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

FlyJack, thanks for the information.  The T-28A was indeed in civilian hands in the 1960s and was fully acrobatic.  When it was used in military pilot training by the USAF and Navy I believe it was the second military aircraft that the trainees would encounter.  I don't remember what the initial aircraft the USAF trainees encountered but I think it was the Beech T-34 that the Navy trainees flew.

The T-28A could accommodate both seat and backpack parachutes and didn't need a thin backpack such as the NB-6 or NB-8.  This is another reason why there was no point in Hayden paying two or three times as much for an NB-6 as he paid for the parachute that is now at the WSHM.

I knew a fellow who owned a T-28A in the early 1960s but never got a ride in it.  While in the military, I did get some flying time as a passenger in the DeHavilland beaver.

Thanks again. 

Yes, it makes no sense to have a Cadillac and old VW for a set of bailout rigs only meant to meet regs and never be actually used. You buy the cheapest most similar set you could find.

Was an NB6 3x the price at the time?? I did not know that.

and Hayden's tan container at the museum is a civilian version Pioneer P2-B-24 originally silk circa 1939-1943, 30 years old at the time of NORJAK. It was designed at the time to be very thin. So, old, cheap and thin, exactly what Hayden would want, he said the missing one was similar but military olive drab version.. there were many of those with different container numbers.