olemisscub

Larry said last night that Cossey told him that the ripcord handle was moved higher on the same side as it always was, not moved across the chest. He also told Larry that this had been an old chute of his that he repurposed and sold to Hayden, not that they were his parachutes from his residence or his own personal chutes from Issaquah. That can't be totally accurate though, because Cossey would never jump with an emergency rig that didn't have D-rings for a reserve.

This news report is in my book and I'm confident this is almost certainly from the dogs. Rataczak said the first thing the K-9's did was take the steaks out of the crew meals. The FBI dudes who came on later wouldn't have known about that and made an assumption. Please don't fight this. You can just say "Yeah, I guess that makes more sense."

You're picking out photos of him with his eyebrows raised. His forehead lines weren't normally that dramatic in any other photos I've seen of him. And his hair is super short in those photos you posted. What mainly eliminates him in my mind is his nose. He has a nose like your guy Bill.

Find someone WITHOUT a suspect who actually agrees with you that a sketch drawn from scratch two days after an event is somehow LESS accurate than an identikit sketch created 9 to 12 months after an event. The main witnesses liked A days after the event The main witnesses liked B a year after the event Because these two look like different individuals, they can't both be right, so I'll go with the earliest sketch as being the more accurate of the two. And hey, if your supposed photo of Cooper looks like B, then more power to you. I have no dog in this fight. I could care less if my opinion on which sketch is better is realized one day or not. I'm just being logical and logic suggests that a memory two days after an event is better than one a year later.

Portland office weren't fans of his....

Mitchell 100% spoke to Tosaw. I've had conversations with Bill about his experience with "Mr. Tosaw" (as Bill calls him). I've spoken to Bill recently about another issue, mainly about the obnoxious drunk. He said that it was an "elderly man" sitting in front of him. The only elderly person on the flight was Robert Gregory, who would have been sitting back there. I sent him photos of Gregory and Labissoniere (my candidate for the drunk) and he says he really can't recall the actual face. He remembers the drunk making the FBI agent on the bus doing the roll call laugh by asking "hey, how long is all this going to take, I've got to piss." Gregory's description is pretty thorough, so I just don't think it's him. Lab's testimony, on the other hand, reads like a drunk man's recollection of the events on the plane. Cooper wearing a "blazer and sporty vest". What? Lab also refers to having to take numerous trips to the bathroom and had a DUI at one point. Plus his hair is all disheveled in the video of him coming in the airport and I think he even looks a little drunk.

A discrepancy I've also been curious about. When there is a conflict, I try to always go with the earliest statement when there is no other corroboration. Tina's 302 says "he had another book of matches". It's hard to get "I got up and found him some more matches" from that statement. She also describes the matchbook. That likely wouldn't have been pertinent info to include if it was just a matchbook she supplied him with. Lastly, I go with the 302 because why would a heavy smoker like Cooper commit a hijacking with a mere handful of matches left in a single matchbook? Surely he was planning to smoke both on the plane and during his escape. Two matchbooks makes sense. I'll have to go through Tosaw's narrative again, but off the top of my head the matches contradict with the 302's and Cooper's drink order contradicts the 302's. I believe there are a few other things too. Oh, he has the passengers being moved up much too early. Tina says she only moved them up after they landed and were taxiing to the isolated runway.

Brian had testing done on the wadded clumps he still has. This was around 2017. He said these fragments and wads contained exactly 20 additional numbers, not 19 or 21, but 20. I'll ask him for those serials, or partial serials, and we can see where they land with the known serials recovered.

I mean, would that not be hideous behavior if you had indeed been legitimately threatening me? I didn't call you hideous dude.

Well that's fine then. I don't care about looking ridiculous if I'm proven to be wrong on something. I welcome it. The more accurate information there is in this case, the better.

Are you legitimately that hideous of a person to be threatening me over an internet debate? You're going to dox me like you did to Ulis? I mean, knock yourself out. I don't have any arrests on my record for you to laud over my head.

One of the earliest articles lists him as President of Seattle Sky Sports, so I guess he and Emrich were partners to some degree. I'll attach an image of an interview Emrich gave a few days after the event that may explain your other issues. Hopefully you can read it.

It is absurd.. you can always create doubt in anything with enough imagination. Like you are doing with Cossey's statement from Nov 26, 71? But, you of all people should know that you don't just accept an unsubstantiated claim as fact, especially when there is contradictory evidence. Like you are doing with Cossey's bullshit claims from 2003+ that he received a phone call that night?

That makes sense, especially given the patch sewn on it. "SSS # 5 COSS" So maybe he had several numbered student reserves. That also checks out with the dummy chute being grabbed inadvertently. Emrich is asked to provide chest reserves and he goes to where the cheapest stuff is: the training chutes, some functional, others apparently not. We have Emrich on record saying he figured he'd never see them again so he just grabbed the cheapest things laying around.

I've got that in my analogy: "when one was found it had two car registrations in the glove box from the same date as the original sale." And that's not the ONLY way. C'mon. That's like Ulis saying the ONLY way the money got to Tena Bar was from Cooper landing there, so we should change the entire flight path. Just because you or I fail to come up with an alternate solution doesn't mean there aren't any. In my analogy, Cossey is a car salesman. What do car salesman do? They sell cars. What do riggers do? They rig parachutes. It's unlikely those were the only two parachutes he packed on May 21st (which was a Friday fwiw). Cossey could have been filling out multiple cards at the same time and inadvertently folded one within the other and put both inside the museum chute. 10 minutes later and he's staring at this reserve he's packing and wondering where the card went. "Am I imagining things? Didn't I just write a card for this rig?" That sort of stuff. It's an unlikely scenario but it's still a possibility. Now don't go getting all upset with me for offering an alternate scenario. I STILL consider it a high probability that the card came from Cooper's rig.

Edwards seems unaware that the copycat hijackings also produced pressure bumps when the hijackers jumped.

You're continuing to ignore the fact that we DO NOT know the provenance of that card. It's provenance would have to be established with certainty before it would be admitted in court as evidence. An assumption isn't enough. All of this is predicated on that card being from Cooper's rig. None of us know if it is or isn't. If a car store sold two cars to a person on the same date, and then both of those cars were stolen, and when one was found it had two car registrations in the glove box from the same date as the original sale, then sure, we could assume that the second car registration was from the still missing car, but it's not a guarantee. And it's especially not a guarantee if it differs from the memory of both the owner and the car salesman. I'm exercising caution here.

So what corroboration do we have that Hayden's description is correct? His statement contradicts with the packing card too. Is it worthless as well? And Cossey's claim is only "contradicted by Hayden" due to container color. Forgive me for not putting much weight into someone's verbiage for a particular shade of green. My only bias is for the case evidence. I'm sticking to case evidence that has not yet been proven false. Case files say NB-6. Until shown otherwise, I'm sticking to it. You're overturning evidence from the case based on incomplete information because you DO NOT KNOW if that packing card came from Cooper's rig. It's an educated guess.

Because it's in the literal case evidence from 1971 and there is no other evidence of it being anything else. There is no evidence of Cossey lying about the parachutes until 1976 in a media story. Flyjack is having to literally INVENT an undocumented interview to establish Cossey as being a liar in 1971. It didn't happen. No evidence for it. It's an invention.

I received several super high resolution photographs of the aircraft at Reno from the University of Nevada-Reno. This one shows the "damage" done to the stairs in really good clarity.

My dude, I'm not the one INVENTING scenarios that require us to dismiss plain English readings of the case evidence (we haven't been able to contact Cossey all night = well, they must have talked to him but nobody ever told the boss) and then proclaiming them to be truthful because "no one else has an explanation, so mine is the ultimate truth". You're confusing EVERYONE to hell and back with this four dimensional calculus equation that you've worked out that you think can explain away a couple of discrepancies. How about this: There is NO ERROR in Hayden OR Cossey's description because we don't know the provenance of that second packing card. Just because it lacks an explanation doesn't require it to have come from the Cooper rig. I've not found ONE INSTANCE of Cossey being inconsistent with the FBI until he starts saying dumb shit to Larry. In his FIRST INTERVIEW (read: documented/non-imaginary) with the FBI, he says it was an NB-6 that he put a 28 foot canopy in that he constructed for Norman Hayden. Hayden tells the FBI it was a military type parachute with a 28 foot canopy. He didn't give a specific designation for the Museum Chute so why should we expect him to state that it was an NB-6 or B-4 or P-2? Then, Tosaw comes along in 1983 and asks for a replica. Cossey gives him a 28 footer in a NB-6....but that of course, according to you, is Cossey continuing to maintain this lie he constructed on the 26th of November because of...reasons. All of us on this page who've tried to follow your theory should earn a PhD from our efforts. It requires cherry picking, rationalizing, ignoring, obfuscating, and an 8 page flow chart. Your whole thought process is that Cossey was mistaken and described his own backpacks during some as yet undocumented (read: imaginary) interview and then when he gave his ACTUAL documented interview a day later he decided to lie and keep the erroneous description he already provided them (again, undocumented), yet despite that lie he DID decide to tell the truth this time about their provenance. So Cossey lives this supposed lie with the FBI and media for decades but then 30+ years later during an obviously bullshitted tall tale, you've cherry picked something from that bullshit tall tale that has literally no other corroboration within the case evidence (Cossey receiving a call on the night of the hijacking) and are retroactively injecting that into the case evidence from 1971. You may have saddled us with a PhD but you get a gold medal for the mental gymnastics it has taken to get you to that place. This isn't complicated, people. There IS indeed a discrepancy between what Hayden AND Cossey said and what is written on this packing card that we think MAY have come from Cooper's rig, but we don't have to reinvent the wheel because of this discrepancy. I'll stick with Cossey AND Hayden telling truthful stories and giving truthful descriptions of NORMAN HAYDEN'S rigs in 1971 as they appear in the FBI files. I'll then continue to ignore the VERIFIED bullshit that Cossey started saying in 2003. If I'm ever proven wrong on this then I'll actually admit it, which I doubt you ever would. But as far as I'll continue to be concerned, it was an NB-6 because Cossey said two days after the hijacking that it was an NB-6 he packed for Norman Hayden and because he packed an NB-6 for Richard Tosaw. Absent any ACTUAL evidence to the contrary, I'll go with it being an NB-6, because the case evidence never says it was ANYTHING other than an NB-6. Period.

stop. We've got Hayden on multiple occasions talking about how the pioneer is the one he wore because he liked the harness to it better than the harness that was on the OD one.

If you got a pair of bailout rigs to meet regs, you would get two similar, not completely different. Fist, if you got them just to meet regs, you wouldn't care what you are given. Second, how are they completely different? You need to explain this. You're acting like we're talking about the difference in a car and a truck. We're not. They are both 4 pin pull containers. Olive Drab and Sage Green are not the same.. In 1971 a nylon NB6 was maybe 15 years old, it would not have faded.. it would not be mistaken for a much older faded Olive Drab. Before you got into the case you didn't have a military parachute.. you make a huge assumption that Hayden didn't know what Olive Drab was.. not valid. I'm assuming Hayden doesn't know what "SAGE GREEN" is and you're assuming that he did. My assumptions is much safer. Olive drab was a ubiquitous term for "military green". So whether it's a slightly lighter shade or a darker green doesn't matter. A lay person would just call it "olive drab" regardless. You're splitting hairs on the color thing to argue your point. Today, an NB6 might be 60 years old, then maybe 15. And apparently they weren't in vogue for skydivers buying conversions. B-4's were much preferred. You want it both ways, cherry picking parts from Hayden's description and from Cossey's... I don't see any way that Cossey's description differs from Hayden's aside from color. And like I said, I will NEVER concede to your argument that Hayden had to know the difference in "sage green" and "olive drab".You're acting like "sage green" is part of everyone's common verbiage. It's not. Not even remotely close. But "olive drab" IS part of common verbiage for "military green". I'd have been surprised if he actually described the container as sage green if it was in fact sage green.

Hardly speculation. It's quite obvious. There is not a more obvious conflation in the FBI Files. It's a verbatim conflation.

Hayden's original description doesn't say tan cloth harness. That's a clear later conflation. I think you know that. "An NB6 is nothing like his Pioneer" Holy hyperbole! 40+ years later in someone's memory, an NB-6 and that P-2 would absolutely be considered "similar" aside from their color. They're both boring military bailout rigs with similar features on the containers. If they were literally the same model aside from color, like if he had essentially received a set, I think Hayden would have said that. Additionally, you're very hung up on this Sage Green/Olive Drab thing. Before I got into the specific nomenclature of this case, I wouldn't have known there was a "military" type color called "sage green." Everything "green" in the military is just called "olive drab" colloquially. "Go get your OD's on, men." Hayden using the term "olive drab" to describe something that was potentially "sage green" is a total nothingburger. I'm sure most of the lurkers reading this would agree with me on that.