DB Cooper

[FLYJACK 697]

A parachute riggers log book is required to be maintained for two years... note all work, repairs, alterations. modifications and defects... parachute details..  name and address of the owner.

The fact that Cossey did not supply his log book, lied about giving it to the FBI or bring it to the in-person interview on the 26th is a red flag...

Edited December 22, 2024 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 510]

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

It's still speculation. You can't provide any actual proof from the case files that Cossey thought he was describing his parachute, so you're speculating. 

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..

MORE speculation. This was Charlie Farrell's case. If someone talked to Cossey at any point he'd have been told. Instead, Farrell writes a document bitching about how no one has been in contact with Cossey. 

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

I'm not TRYING to reconcile the descriptions, you are the one doing that. I'm MERELY saying that your argument that Cossey is describing HIS parachutes to the FBI a day after he told the media they were Hayden's is bizarre. Especially when his first documented statement to the FBI has the description coming AFTER the story of where they came from. 

I know you won't budge on this, but everyone else will see this. Hey everyone reading this: this isn't complicated. This is the first time Cossey is documented talking to the FBI. On what planet can anyone read this and think Cossey is describing HIS personal parachute?

 

 

[olemisscub 510]

8 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

A parachute riggers log book is required to be maintained for two years... note all work, repairs, alterations. modifications and defects... parachute details..  name and address of the owner.

The fact that Cossey did not supply his log book, lied about giving it to the FBI or bring it to the in-person interview on the 26th is a red flag...

Sure, it's weird. But what do you think it is a red flag OF, exactly?

[FLYJACK 697]

21 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

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

It's still speculation. You can't provide any actual proof from the case files that Cossey thought he was describing his parachute, so you're speculating. 

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..

MORE speculation. This was Charlie Farrell's case. If someone talked to Cossey at any point he'd have been told. Instead, Farrell writes a document bitching about how no one has been in contact with Cossey. 

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

I'm not TRYING to reconcile the descriptions, you are the one doing that. I'm MERELY saying that your argument that Cossey is describing HIS parachutes to the FBI a day after he told the media they were Hayden's is bizarre. Especially when his first documented statement to the FBI has the description coming AFTER the story of where they came from. 

I know you won't budge on this, but everyone else will see this. Hey everyone reading this: this isn't complicated. This is the first time Cossey is documented talking to the FBI. On what planet can anyone read this and think Cossey is describing HIS personal parachute?

 

 

99% of this case can be called speculation...

I have reconciled incompatibilities using the evidence.

That is how you move and advance this case with the information you have.

If we had ALL the facts a 12 year old could solve this thing.

That interview on the 26th was his FIRST IN PERSON.

That doesn't mean the first time he spoke with somebody. You do realize that.

What I won't budge on is accepting Cossey's NB6 description as a true description of the rig Cooper used. 

You apparently have just accepted it, you defend it with no corroboration and no reconciliation for the conflicts...

If you have some corroboration, I am all ears.. I couldn't find any.

Look, you can reject my explanation,, but you still can't explain it.

and if you can't explain it you can't accept Cossey's description.

 

 

Edited December 22, 2024 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 697]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Sure, it's weird. But what do you think it is a red flag OF, exactly?

Apparently, I am not allowed to speculate...  

Limbach speculates about Skip, Cunningham speculates about the flight path timing... you are never critical of their claims.. never question obvious errors. I do believe speculation is required to move this case.

You might have a bias.

You just want to argue this aggressively to defend Cossey's NB6 dubious claim.. 

Guess what, you still can't corroborate it or reconcile the inconsistencies.

We only have Cossey's claim and a lot of red flags flying everywhere... that is a FACT.

I am sure if you were being completely objective, you would not accept Cossey's claim as fact. It is that obvious.

Contrary to your bizarre prior assertion, the burden of proof is really on the affirmative not the negation. Cossey's claim must be proven true, not false.

People make false claims all the time... sometimes they lie, sometimes they are mistaken... a claim is not a fact.

We have many conflicts and red flags that raise significant doubts about Cossey's NB6 claim.. both the packing card and Cossey's claim cannot be true...  Since there is absolutely ZERO corroboration for Cossey's claim it can't be accepted as true. I don't have to prove it was false, I just reconciled his statement within the evidence..

 

Edited December 22, 2024 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 510]

31 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Apparently, I am not allowed to speculate...  

Limbach speculates about Skip, Cunningham speculates about the flight path timing... you are never critical of their claims.. never question obvious errors. I believe speculation is required to move this case.

You might have a bias.

You just want to argue this aggressively to defend Cossey's NB6 dubious claim.. 

Guess what, you still can't corroborate it or reconcile the inconsistencies.

We only have Cossey's claim and a lot of red flags flying everywhere... that is a FACT.

I am sure if you were being completely objective, you would not accept Cossey''s claim as fact. It is that obvious.

Speculation is fine when we are absent case evidence, but we’re not absent case evidence on this issue with Cossey talking to the FBI or thinking that it was HIS chute. It’s quite obvious from reading the plain English that Farrell is bitching about how they can’t get a hold of Cossey but the media can. If they had spoken to Cossey they’d have mentioned it and would have used the term “re-contact”.

Yes, there is an inconsistency with the canopy size between what Hayden AND Cossey believed was in that thing and what that packing card says. You think you have figured it out. That’s fine. But you’ve not convinced me of your explanation for that inconsistency.

I’ve changed my opinions on this case MANY times if I’m convinced of something. You yourself have convinced me of things so it’s not some slight toward you. I’m simply not following you here. We clearly disagree. Not worth us continuing to litigate this. 

And I don’t know enough about the flight path to debate Cunningham about it. But when it has been discussed between us on a show or whatever I will clearly express my view that I think he is moving it too far south. And how often do I talk about Skip? I don’t think he was Cooper but there isn’t a ton to attack him on as far as what I’m looking for with Cooper. His nose doesn’t strike me as what I think Cooper’s nose was, but that’s about it.

[DWeber 2]

Going back to Fly’s initial post. You were able to connect the tie to a specific environment and person? Are you considering this person a suspect at this time?

 

[FLYJACK 697]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Speculation is fine when we are absent case evidence, but we’re not absent case evidence on this issue with Cossey talking to the FBI or thinking that it was HIS chute. It’s quite obvious from reading the plain English that Farrell is bitching about how they can’t get a hold of Cossey but the media can. If they had spoken to Cossey they’d have mentioned it and would have used the term “re-contact”.

Yes, there is an inconsistency with the canopy size between what Hayden AND Cossey believed was in that thing and what that packing card says. You think you have figured it out. That’s fine. But you’ve not convinced me of your explanation for that inconsistency.

I’ve changed my opinions on this case MANY times if I’m convinced of something. You yourself have convinced me of things so it’s not some slight toward you. I’m simply not following you here. We clearly disagree. Not worth us continuing to litigate this. 

And I don’t know enough about the flight path to debate Cunningham about it. But when it has been discussed between us on a show or whatever I will clearly express my view that I think he is moving it too far south. And how often do I talk about Skip? I don’t think he was Cooper but there isn’t a ton to attack him on as far as what I’m looking for with Cooper. His nose doesn’t strike me as what I think Cooper’s nose was, but that’s about it.

You are making assumptions..

That interview on the 26th was in person...  yes. He must have talked to FBI before that. When exactly, we don't know. You don't know that he didn't talk to somebody on the 24th or 25th..

The description of the missing front chute on the 25th was most likely from the owner, Cossey. 

The "flat circular" added to the description on the 25th was not from Hayden's earlier description, It was in Cossey's.

You keep minimizing the inconsistencies by quoting only the canopy size.. this isn't the only inconsistency.. Nothing on that card corroborates Cossey's claim.

Challenging things advances knowledge,, I do get irritated with invalid criticism, bad logic and poor arguments. I have always said speculation is necessary to move things, but not all speculation is created equal.

 

There should be no disagreement here,, I see no way to reach any other conclusion.

All I am saying is that because Cossey's claim is incompatible with the packing card, incompatible with Hayden, and has absolutely ZERO corroboration. It CANNOT be assumed to be true.. the burden of proof is on the affirmative. This is logic 101.

Unless you have some corroboration that I don't or some reconciliation for the inconsistencies then objectively there is no way to rationally disagree with that.. 

and I have reconciled the inconsistencies to explain Cossey's error using the evidence.. no, I can't prove it but I don't have to. The burden of proof is on Cossey's NB6 claim, not proving it is false..

 

Edited December 22, 2024 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 697]

5 minutes ago, DWeber said:

Going back to Fly’s initial post. You were able to connect the tie to a specific environment and person? Are you considering this person a suspect at this time?

 

No, that person was definitely not Cooper.

[dudeman17 339]

12 hours ago, Robert99 said:

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.

No, it's not that big of a deal, but I & R most assuredly stands for Inspect & Repack. Some riggers used to write 'A.I.R.' for Air, Inspect & Repack, because they would hang the canopy up for a while to air it out and let the 'set' from the previous pack job come out. If I & R (or A.I.R.) was all that was written, then that's all they had to do, check it out and repack it. Any repairs, alterations, or component replacements would be noted specifically.

[olemisscub 510]

12 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

The description of the missing front chute on the 25th was most likely from the owner, Cossey. 

Emrich. He’s the one who actually grabbed the front chutes. And we know the FBI were speaking to him in the early AM of the 25th. 

 

[FLYJACK 697]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Emrich. He’s the one who actually grabbed the front chutes. And we know the FBI were speaking to him in the early AM of the 25th. 

 

Of course Emrich grabbed the front chutes, Cossey believed he was sending his back chutes as well,,

Emrich grabbed and sent the dummy chute that Cossey made. Emrich can't describe Cossey's chutes..

 

Look Ryan, you don't have any argument here, none whatsoever, so stop.

Cossey's description of the missing chute is a claim, it is not a fact. (you are accepting it as fact)

Claims can be lies or errors..

Claims can't be assumed true without corroboration. (Gryder)

For Cossey's description, we have serious red flags, conflicts and ZERO corroboration.

Outside of Cossey's claim there is no evidence that the Hayden's missing chute was an NB6.

The burden of proof is to affirm Cossey's claim,,, there isn't any. Only conflicts.

 

So, accepting Cossey's claim as true is not based in logic but in faith.

 

.

Edited December 22, 2024 by FLYJACK

[georger 244]

Does the chute found near Heisson in the South fork of the Lewis near the Heisson store, still exist? Presumably the FBI still has all of this evidence that could be reexamined ?

[FLYJACK 697]

Just now, georger said:

Does the chute found near Heisson in the South fork of the Lewis near the Heisson store, still exist? Presumably the FBI still has all of this evidence that could be reexamined ?

No, it was never collected, they dismissed it because it was orange and white.

Dead end.

[georger 244]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

No, it was never collected, they dismissed it because it was orange and white.

Dead end.

any photos ?

[olemisscub 510]

34 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Look Ryan, you don't have any argument here, none whatsoever, so stop.

 

Oh? First front chute description shows up in a fully written six page document that is sent to the Director at 5:10 AM then Portland at 5:57 AM on Nov 25th. Please don’t try to spin this with more “well we don’t if someone did or didn’t talk to him before”. Just concede this point and move on. This description of the front chutes didn’t come from Cossey. 
 

[FLYJACK 697]

3 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Oh? First front chute description shows up in a fully written six page document that is sent to the Director at 5:10 AM then Portland at 5:57 AM on Nov 25th. Please don’t try to spin this with more “well we don’t if someone did or didn’t talk to him before”. Just concede this point and move on. This description of the front chutes didn’t come from Cossey. 
 

I know all that,  this is nothing new, those docs don't prove what you think. They don't prove that Cossey did not talk to somebody and they don't prove that the missing rig was an NB6, they are completely irrelevant to the real issue.. 

You need to corroborate Cossey's description of the missing chute, you can't, I tried, it doesn't exist.

If you can't corroborate it then it isn't a fact and since we also have contradictory evidence it is likely false.

 

Edited December 23, 2024 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 697]

4 hours ago, georger said:

any photos ?

No,  

I did think of one thing.. it was found along the banks of the South Fork Lewis by a local family, if they still live nearby they might remember it or still have it,,, Somebody would have to canvas the area..  real long shot though. We have the serial number so it can be checked.

There was massive flooding in that River, it may have been hidden then washed into the river, if Cooper's.

 

Edited December 23, 2024 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 510]

2 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

I know all that,  this is nothing new, those docs don't prove what you think. They don't prove that Cossey did not talk to somebody and they don't prove that the missing rig was an NB6, they are completely irrelevant to the real issue.. 

You need to corroborate Cossey's description of the missing chute, you can't, I tried, it doesn't exist.

If you can't corroborate it then it isn't a fact and since we also have contradictory evidence it is likely false.

 

It’s not irrelevant. Not even a little. You’re using it to support your argument that Cossey gave some earlier undocumented statement describing his own parachute before his Nov 26th statement. You need for this alleged undocumented statement to come BEFORE he told the papers that the chute came from Hayden on the 25th. If Cossey’s first statement to the FBI actually came AFTER when he talked to the media guys, then your explanation can’t work. So to bolster this claim, you’re using as evidence the fact that we have a very early chute description. This is why you are insisting that it has to come from Cossey. If it is shown to come from another person then your argument is weakened.

And that’s really the sole reason that I disagree with your explanation. I truly think that what we see in the evidence is correct: Cossey’s first statement was on Nov 26th. And why would I care if it wasn’t? I want this story told right, I don’t care WHO is right. This isn’t a contest for me. If you showed me evidence that would convince me of something, then I’d believe it. And it’s nothing against you. You’ve had other theories that have convinced me, but this is like a peer review process. I can follow you on some of your other theories but not on this one because I’m finding myself able to poke holes in it. 

So it’s not irrelevant that those chest descriptions didn’t come from Cossey. It’s disproving a critical piece of evidence that you’ve presented to support your claim. 

Your other piece of evidence I can also attack. For everyone out there, remember, Fly is arguing that we have evidence of an undocumented Cossey statement because of the front pack descriptions (which I've now shown couldn't have come from Cossey), but he's also using as evidence of an undocumented statement the appearance of "flat circular" appearing in a Nov 25th 302. You’re suggesting only Cossey could make such a statement. I feel pretty strongly I can make that less likely as well. We've got this statement where the FBI is saying they tried all day of the 25th to talk to Cossey up until they quit trying at 3:30 and that now, on the morning of the 26th, they are assigning a lead to special agents to contact Cossey. 

Ok, so when is the first time "flat circular" shows up in the FBI Files?

Well, it's on a document that was written and then first sent out at 4:25 pm on the 25th. So if we go by the standard English language reading of these documents then that means that this undocumented mystery statement took place between 3:30 pm and 4:25 pm when this document was first sent. And also for this to be evidence of your argument means that we have to believe that the ONLY thing they added to Hayden's description after Cossey's undocumented statement was "flat circular military type." Because that's the only difference in this and Hayden's description. In addition to this undocumented statement having to occur in this narrow window and for it to have been such a low value statement that it only merited adding "flat circular" to Hayden's description, we're also having to believe that the FBI were so intent on getting a statement from Cossey that they assigned two special agents to track him down DESPITE having already talked to him and just not documenting it for some reason.

I'm just not convinced that there is ANY evidence whatsoever to make an implication that Cossey 1) spoke to the FBI before he made his "these were Hayden's chutes" statements on the Nov 25th, and 2) that he ever believed that his personal backpacks were on that plane. 

Believe what you want, that's fine, but to me this just means that there is another explanation for the discrepancy between Cossey/Hayden and what the packing card says. 

Hell, Cossey's NB-6 statement could indeed be completely full of shit for all I know, but I don't believe it's for the reason that you are saying because I see nothing anywhere that makes me think Cossey ever gave a statement to the FBI at a time when he thought these were his parachutes he was describing. 

Edited December 23, 2024 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 697]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

It’s not irrelevant. Not even a little. You’re using it to support your argument that Cossey gave some earlier undocumented statement describing his own parachute before his Nov 26th statement. You need for this alleged undocumented statement to come BEFORE he told the papers that the chute came from Hayden on the 25th. If Cossey’s first statement to the FBI actually came AFTER when he talked to the media guys, then your explanation can’t work. So to bolster this claim, you’re using as evidence the fact that we have a very early chute description. This is why you are insisting that it has to come from Cossey. If it is shown to come from another person then your argument is weakened.

And that’s really the sole reason that I disagree with your explanation. I truly think that what we see in the evidence is correct: Cossey’s first statement was on Nov 26th. And why would I care if it wasn’t? I want this story told right, I don’t care WHO is right. This isn’t a contest for me. If you showed me evidence that would convince me of something, then I’d believe it. And it’s nothing against you. You’ve had other theories that have convinced me, but this is like a peer review process. I can follow you on some of your other theories but not on this one because I’m finding myself able to poke holes in it. 

So it’s not irrelevant that those chest descriptions didn’t come from Cossey. It’s disproving a critical piece of evidence that you’ve presented to support your claim. 

Your other piece of evidence I can also attack. For everyone out there, remember, Fly is arguing that we have evidence of an undocumented Cossey statement because of the front pack descriptions (which I've now shown couldn't have come from Cossey), but he's also using as evidence of an undocumented statement the appearance of "flat circular" appearing in a Nov 25th 302. You’re suggesting only Cossey could make such a statement. I feel pretty strongly I can make that less likely as well. We've got this statement where the FBI is saying they tried all day of the 25th to talk to Cossey up until they quit trying at 3:30 and that now, on the morning of the 26th, they are assigning a lead to special agents to contact Cossey. 

Ok, so when is the first time "flat circular" shows up in the FBI Files?

Well, it's on a document that was written and then first sent out at 4:25 pm on the 25th. So if we go by the standard English language reading of these documents then that means that this undocumented mystery statement took place between 3:30 pm and 4:25 pm when this document was first sent. And also for this to be evidence of your argument means that we have to believe that the ONLY thing they added to Hayden's description after Cossey's undocumented statement was "flat circular military type." Because that's the only difference in this and Hayden's description. In addition to this undocumented statement having to occur in this narrow window and for it to have been such a low value statement that it only merited adding "flat circular" to Hayden's description, we're also having to believe that the FBI were so intent on getting a statement from Cossey that they assigned two special agents to track him down DESPITE having already talked to him and just not documenting it for some reason.

I'm just not convinced that there is ANY evidence whatsoever to make an implication that Cossey 1) spoke to the FBI before he made his "these were Hayden's chutes" statements on the Nov 25th, and 2) that he ever believed that his personal backpacks were on that plane. 

Believe what you want, that's fine, but to me this just means that there is another explanation for the discrepancy between Cossey/Hayden and what the packing card says. 

Hell, Cossey's NB-6 statement could indeed be completely full of shit for all I know, but I don't believe it's for the reason that you are saying because I see nothing anywhere that makes me think Cossey ever gave a statement to the FBI at a time when he thought these were his parachutes he was describing. 

Nope. Wrongo,, it is NOT a critical piece of evidence. It isn't needed at all actually.

"flat circular" came from Cossey, not Hayden. The early description attributed to Hayden never mentioned canopy shape.  So, where did it come from.

Emrich didn't even know he sent Cossey's dummy chute. No proof that chest chute description came from him.

An agent started contacting people about the chutes early AM on the 25th,, Cossey claimed he was contacted well before that in the evening. Unconfirmed of course.. so it is still plausible.

There is also a very real possibility of conflation,,, if somebody thinks they talked to the owner of the chutes, that could be Cossey or Hayden. The info can get mixed up..

This is not as clean as you present it,, lots of confusion early on..

NOTHING in the documents prove Cossey was not contacted and gave the rig description before the aerobatic comments during the in person interview on the 26th... NADDA

It is, in fact absurd that he wasn't contacted before the in person interview.. how does he arrange the in person interview.

Maybe, Cossey gave his chute description during the interview but before Hayden was brought up by the agents.. maybe during the phone call before he went to the interview,,, You have no idea what happened.. These documents do not prove what you claim they do... PERIOD.

There is ZERO evidence to disprove Cossey describing his personal rig... not Hayden's.

Later, Cossey even told us... it was his personal rig.. 

Of course I can't prove it but I don't have to... it is the best and only way to reconcile everything within the evidence. It is an explanation that is not even necessary to dismiss Cossey's description.

You have no other better explanation that fits.. Go ahead make one up... 

You present NO explanation..  but try to trash mine with irrelevancies and bogus claims.

And who cares if you don't accept it.. You get lots of things wrong.. this case evolves.

I can't prove it and you can't disprove it,,  it just reconciles major conflicts and fits the evidence when nothing else does..

This isn't peer review, I spent years saying things that everyone disagreed with or just didn't grasp that were ultimately accepted years later. Peer review constrains advancement. Often, the consensus in this case is wrong..

Cossey's description is most likely false. That is all that is important.

Cooper's rig might have been found but rejected for not matching Cossey's description. It was likely a Pioneer WW2 era Olive Drab military 24' ripstop conical Steinthal SN 60-9707, July 1960, possibly white.

and for 50 plus years everyone has believed as a fact that Cooper used an NB6, 28' flat circular...  well he most likely didn't. If people still believe it, that is their problem.

Edited December 23, 2024 by FLYJACK

[georger 244]

5 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

No,  

I did think of one thing.. it was found along the banks of the South Fork Lewis by a local family, if they still live nearby they might remember it or still have it,,, Somebody would have to canvas the area..  real long shot though. We have the serial number so it can be checked.

There was massive flooding in that River, it may have been hidden then washed into the river, if Cooper's.

 

Nice! ....  its a long shot but who knows .... I hope some enterprizing person is reading this and follows up.

Edited December 23, 2024 by georger

[olemisscub 510]

Nope. Wrongo,, it is NOT a critical piece of evidence. It isn't needed at all actually.

As vigorous as you've been arguing about it, then it sure seems like you cared about it as evidence. 

Emrich didn't even know he sent Cossey's dummy chute. No proof that chest chute description came from him.

That chest chute description not mentioning that one was a dummy leads MORE credence to Emrich being the supplier. Again, I'm not even sure why this particular issue is still being discussed. The person WRITING the document says that at 6am "We've been trying to contact Cossey all night." So we're to believe that the guy writing the document somehow doesn't know about this lengthy six page document that was just sent off to the FBI director that has a detailed "Cossey" description in it? These guys were all on the same floor of the Seattle Office and were working together on this. That's a silly notion to continue thinking that this chest chute description came from Cossey. 

Cossey claimed he was contacted well before that in the evening. Unconfirmed of course.. so it is still plausible.

Fruit of the poisonous tree. I don't care what Cossey says in statements from 2003 or 2008. He's saying he was contacted by the FBI that night as PART of his bullshit story that he sent his own chutes from his house, THUS, him saying they contacted him while the hijacking was still occurring is almost certainly bullshit too. 

NOTHING in the documents prove Cossey was not contacted and gave the rig description before the aerobatic comments during the in person interview on the 26th... NADDA

And there is NOTHING in the documents that proves that Santa Claus wasn't on the plane that night either. Nothing in the documents that proves that "24 feet" wasn't a scriveners error. NADDA. See how goofy this is? I could do that same weak argument. You're better than that.  

It is, in fact absurd that he wasn't contacted before the in person interview.. how does he arrange the in person interview.

lol, of course he was. Just on the 26th after they sent two agents after him! How does that have any bearing on your argument?

Maybe, Cossey gave his chute description during the interview but before Hayden was brought up by the agents.. maybe during the phone call before he went to the interview,,, You have no idea what happened..

Maybe Andy Anderson was D.B. Cooper? Maybe Tina and Anderson were lovers? You have no idea what happened. 

These documents do not prove what you claim they do... PERIOD.

Well they for DAMN SURE do not prove what you are claiming they do. 

You get lots of things wrong

But you don't, clearly. 

 

You have no other better explanation that fits.. Go ahead make one up... 

I don't have to. I don't have an explanation for Tena Bar. Does that mean that one of your theories about Tena Bar is defacto correct just because I don't have an explanation? No. That's what Ulis does whenever someone challenges him on his WFP burial scenario. "Since you can't come up with an explanation, then mine is the correct one by default."

You present NO explanation..  

Again, I don't have to present an explanation to have an opinion about YOUR explanation.

but try to trash mine with irrelevancies and bogus claims.

You've been presenting as evidence for days:

Cossey says he was called the night of the hijacking - you got that from a 2003 interview where it's part of a known lie. 

Cossey gave an undocumented interview to the FBI about the backchutes where he thought they were his but this happened BEFORE he spoke to the media on the 25th  -  we have a document from the 26th where agents are pissed that the media has talked to Cossey but they haven't. Again, these agents are working TOGETHER. If there was a prior interview, they wouldn't have been so intent on going after him. 

Cossey was the only one who could have supplied the description of the backchutes - they write that no one has answered Cossey's phone all night an hour AFTER firing off a six page letter containing a full description of the backchutes ergo Cossey didn't give that description contained in that letter. 

This isn't peer review, I spent years saying things that everyone disagreed with or just didn't grasp that were ultimately accepted years later.

So you're batting .1000 in your mind? Every opinion you have is the truth? Every explanation you have for something is correct? These are theories. Theories are meant to be attacked. They are meant to see if they can hold up to scrutiny. I find this theory of yours lacking because I'm able to attack it with case evidence. 

and for 50 plus years everyone has believed as a fact that Cooper used an NB6, 28' flat circular...  well he most likely didn't. If people still believe it, that is their problem.

Nope. I've changed my mind. I think the packing card said 26 and the guy wrote 24. I mean, were you there? How do you really know the agent didn't have a brain fart when hand writing that 302 from Girolamo? Maybe he was thinking of his girlfriend at the time and if she was mad he was missing their anniversary dinner they had planned that night. Maybe his wife was about to have a baby. Maybe he had the runs and couldn't concentrate. Maybe the lady who typed it was daydreaming about Steve McQueen. Maybe it was her first day and she hit the wrong key because she was nervous. You weren't there. You have no idea what happened. So honestly, we really shouldn't believe anything written in the FBI Files. 

[dudeman17 339]

For what it's worth...

Unless it is specifically documented otherwise, my educated guess is that the front reserves belonged to Emrich, not Cossey. Here's why - Cossey is contacted and offers his gear. So he calls Emrich and tells him to get it. But Emrich is then contacted and told that they have the back ones, he just needs to send the fronts. He likely asks 'where did you get those', and if he's told 'some pilot the flight service guy knows', then he knows that those are bailout rigs and the front reserves can't be used anyways. So why would he give his friend's, his rigger's, personal reserve when he's got a rack full of student gear? That student gear is nobody's personal gear that will be missed, he's got more of it and it is easily replaced. That would also explain the dummy reserve. It's for some dirtbag hijacker, it's the cheapest thing he's got, and it can't be used with the bailout rig anyways. Cossey wouldn't own that, why would he? That's for student training, the student stuff belongs to the dropzone which belongs to Emrich. Emrich knows what those rigs are, he knows what's in them, maybe that's where the first 'flat circular' comes from, from the good reserve. (That's the one the FBI has, does anyone know what that canopy is?)

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

Quote

I & R

For the purposes of this thread, "I & R" stand for "Iterate & Reiterate".

[dudeman17 339]

37 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Maybe the lady who typed it was daydreaming about Steve McQueen.

[FLYJACK 697]

7 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

For what it's worth...

Unless it is specifically documented otherwise, my educated guess is that the front reserves belonged to Emrich, not Cossey. Here's why - Cossey is contacted and offers his gear. So he calls Emrich and tells him to get it. But Emrich is then contacted and told that they have the back ones, he just needs to send the fronts. He likely asks 'where did you get those', and if he's told 'some pilot the flight service guy knows', then he knows that those are bailout rigs and the front reserves can't be used anyways. So why would he give his friend's, his rigger's, personal reserve when he's got a rack full of student gear? That student gear is nobody's personal gear that will be missed, he's got more of it and it is easily replaced. That would also explain the dummy reserve. It's for some dirtbag hijacker, it's the cheapest thing he's got, and it can't be used with the bailout rig anyways. Cossey wouldn't own that, why would he? That's for student training, the student stuff belongs to the dropzone which belongs to Emrich. Emrich knows what those rigs are, he knows what's in them, maybe that's where the first 'flat circular' comes from, from the good reserve. (That's the one the FBI has, does anyone know what that canopy is?)

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

For the purposes of this thread, "I & R" stand for "Iterate & Reiterate".

They were Cossey's fronts.. 

He made the dummy chute and Emrich didn't even know it was a dummy that he sent so how could he describe it.