FLYJACK

1 We know the FBI has at least one chute, we don't know how many they have. 2 Hayden assumed Cooper used one of his chutes, so he only expected one returned. 3 There are FBI references to Cossey owning the chutes. Since the FBI info is contradictory that isn't a factor. 4 Cossey has claimed he had a chute returned, he thought it was the one left one the plane. Another possibility is that, in error, Cossey was given Hayden's chute that was left on the plane. That may explain his defensive behaviour. You have to look at this from Cossey's and Hayden's perspective, neither knew the other had also sent in back chutes so they both assumed the two chutes that went to the plane were theirs. 5 Cossey sent the chutes in by cab. Cops didn't go to his home. 6 Cossey did make conflicting statements but his statements are not necessary to show that the two Hayden chutes are accounted for and of the two back chutes described by the FBI, only one matches Hayden's. Cossey's statements here are actually irrelevant. 7 There is no extra trip by police. The fact is the packing card found in the back chute left on the plane doesn't match the packing card found in the back chute returned to Hayden but the packing dates match. That means Cooper did not take either of Hayden's chutes. I am not asking people to believe anything, the evidence is clear, Cooper did not use either of Hayden's back chutes. So, which chute did he use?? We can't prove he used Cossey's but there isn't really any other explanation. He didn't use Hayden's. The FBI refers to Cossey as the packer and sometimes owner. The FBI notes demonstrate confusion about the chutes. Hayden got back a 1957 S/N 226 matching the one Bruce saw. The card found in the back chute left on the plane shows a 1960 S/N 60-9707

You have this all mixed up, The two front chutes from Issaquah are irrelevant. You continue to conflate the front and back chutes.. even though I have explained it. Hayden's opinion is irrelevant. Cossey's opinion is irrelevant. They both made reasonable assumptions with the info they had, those assumptions are not facts. You are using Hayden's assumption as a fact. Last time.. Ignore the two front chutes from Issaquah. They went on the plane and there is no dispute with them. We are only concerned with the back chutes. Two similar back chutes were sent from Hayden. Both packed by Cossey the same date. 1) Packed by Cossey May 21/71 manufactured 1960 S/N 60-9707. This was left on the plane confirmed by card found in chute. 2) Packed by Cossey May 21/71 manufactured 1957 S/N 226. Confirmed by packing card. This was returned to Hayden then went to museum. If we have both of Hayden's chute accounted for then Cooper took another back chute. The FBI described the the chutes that went to the plane and only ONE matches Hayden's, the other is the NB6/8 that matches Cossey's chute. What happened,,, Hayden sent in two similar back chutes. Cossey sent in two back chutes from his home. (not the front ones) They grabbed one from Hayden and one of Cossey's and forwarded to the plane. This may have been intentional or a legitimate mix up?? Hayden's chute (S/N 60-9707) was left by Cooper and Cossey's NB6/8 was taken. The other Hayden chute (S/N 226) sent in but was not forwarded to the plane was returned to him. The other chute Cossey sent in but was not forwarded to the plane was returned to him. Once you get this then read Bruce's article everything makes sense.

You haven't grasped the subject. You have created a strawman. There is no contention Hayden is lying.

You seem to not have a full grasp of this.. read Bruce's article.. even Hayden wonders if they procured two back chutes from Cossey and his two. https://themountainnewswa.net/2011/10/25/db-cooper-case-heats-up-again-with-controversy-over-parachutes/

We aren't talking about the Issaquah front chutes. Both of Hayden's back chutes are accounted for, one was found on the plane and one was returned to him.. they aren't the same date or S/N. The packing dates matched as both were packed on the same date. That confirms they are both Hayden's. So, Cooper used another back chute,, Cossey's. He claimed he sent back chutes from his house.

The FBI files state the chute info came right from the card found inside the chute left on the plane so no card mix up,, and the card with Hayden's returned chute matches that one. What it means is Cooper jumped with Cossey's chute. Initially, Cossey was the FBI go to for chute info then it was revealed that Hayden supplied the chutes so Cossey lost credibility. They both claimed to have supplied the Cooper chutes and it became a mess. This sorts it out. Cossey called it an NB6 sometimes it is called and NB8. non-steerable 28 ft

I am referring to the back pack chutes only. Four parachutes were delivered to the plane. Two backs, one Cossey's and one Hayden's plus the two front chutes from Issaquah, one reserve and one dummy. Both Hayden and Cossey sent back chutes in, they then sent one of Hayden's and one from Cossey to Cooper. Two back chutes sent to Cooper. Hayden's (1960 s/n 60-9707) chute was left behind in the plane and Hayden's other chute (1957 S/N 226) was returned to him. The card found in the chute Cooper left behind does not match the one Hayden got back. That accounts for both of Hayden's chutes. Cooper must have taken Cossey's back chute, not Hayden's.

Parachutes.. The card in the back chute left on the plane was s/n 60-9707, the date May 21 1971 matches both Hayden chutes. The chute returned to Hayden is a different s/n 226. Which chute did Cooper take.. neither of Hayden’s.. one was returned to him and the other was left in the plane. Cooper must have taken one of Cossey’s. If Cossey had one returned, it was either his chute that was never sent to the plane or they sent him Hayden’s which was left on the plane. << This is possible as Cossey became very upset and defensive when asked about the chute and Hayden. but, Cooper must have taken one from Cossey, one of Hayden’s was left on the plane and the one returned to him. They must have sent one from Hayden and one from Cossey to the plane. Robert Blevin's posted screen grabs of searcher notes from a video... Another screen grab states "he received.. 2 parachutes.. An army surplus and a deluxe model." They weren't the same, they weren't both from Hayden. One was Hayden's and one was Cossey's. Cooper took Cossey's chute.

Two things from the notes.. Cooper description = "Latin in appearance, black curley hair, normal cut parted on left" "Portland wind 8 PM 270 deg" = W "Portland wind 8:30 PM 180 deg" = S The wind direction used by the FBI was an estimate, averaged over an hour based on Portland and Salem far from the LZ...

I am reluctant to be explicit.. and have a very good reason. I can discuss privately.

The letter date was before Hahneman's hijacking and after the Cooper hijacking. When the letter was received/analyzed Hahneman was not known. It is there if you know what to look for..

I just found a reference to Hahneman in one of the Cooper letters, dated before his hijacking and him being known to the FBI.. The odds of it being random must be one in a million or more.

I found and ordered two things... The 1964 JC Penney Summer catalog, the big one maybe 1100 pages. I expect to find the tie there.. they also sold various tie clips/tacks, will see. I've also ordered D. B. Cooper Case Exposed : J. Edgar Hoover Cover Up? by Nuttall, George C.,,, Apparently they demonstrate a Hoover cover up connected to mob influence.. I have suspected influence/intervention from the State Department but not the mob,, we'll see what evidence they claim.

The TIE... I noticed that there is a particle mark in the middle of the tie on the UV image at the level of the tie clip.. But, it is on the right side of the tie which would be consistent with a man's shirt having buttons on the right. In Kaye's images he has it on the left and even shows the indent on the back.. There was a lot of discussion and arguing about the right vs left side and left handed vs right handed but that UV mark suggests it was worn on the right side for a long period of time, there is no mark on the left. Carr stated the clip and tie were stored separately. Kaye has the clip on the left.. the particle mark is on the right

Here is the link to the page with the UV image of the tie from Kay's site.. https://citizensleuths.com/uv-imaging-of-tie.html You can open a huge image of the tie and see the particle distribution.. it is not entirely random. There are linear streaks of concentrated particles. Kaye also posts a UV image similar era tie which has a completely random distribution. No linear streaks. It appears some people are having trouble working the interwebs.. I just noticed a few concentrated spots/lines on the back piece, that suggests they were deposited by contact when not being worn.

Perhaps you missed it,, I said I don't care if you accept my theory, I don't MAKE people follow my theories.. Those concentrated particle lines are there, something caused them. My theory is reasonable given other evidence, you have presented nothing but denial.

G lies about me constantly to discredit, he has lied about you on occasion. I don't do that to anybody. You have created a false equivalency.. You still don't get it, I don't care if you accept my tie theory, the fact is there are unique lines on the tie.. you are rejecting the evidence by attacking my theory with assumptions. Don' t you think those lines are significant? or are you going to just ignore them. I don't expect people to accept Hahneman as Cooper, none of you have enough information to form an opinion.. and none of you have enough information to reject him. When I asked you for facts to reject Hahneman, I was attacked and accused of playing games.. no facts were forthcoming. Crickets.. It isn't my responsibility to lay out the case, hand over all my info and prove anything to anybody. Some of you guys have already rejected Hahneman based on assumptions, that is irrational and void of critical thinking. You should reject based on facts. Why would I waste my time explaining a massive amount of evidence to people like that. G who lies about me, Lynn trashed me from a position of absolute ignorance, you have a closed mind and accuse me of games. I owe you people nothing. I have maybe 500 pieces of information which IMO makes Hahneman the best suspect ever presented by a long shot, what do you have to reject him? Seriously, I looked and haven't found it yet. If I missed something I want to know..

It changes nothing, the original photo is there for anyone to see. I only adjusted the contrast and resized when analyzing it, I was looking for marks and patterns. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE The lines are right there on the original, are you going to deny that too.. might as well, right, make up some more excuses to reject an idea. I am getting trashed on your site by the intellectually dishonest and the ignorant.. pathetic. It reminds me why I don't release most of the info I have.. I am not the subject,,, Lynn knows virtually nothing about Hahneman, I have formed an opinion based on many hundreds of pieces of information, not just some newspaper reports. None of you wanted to discuss Hahneman honestly. G is blowing hot air, as usual, the original image is the same as it clearly shows the lines.. adjusting the contrast makes them a bit clearer. None of you want to discuss those lines on the tie honestly. EDIT: "I wouldn't attempt such a conclusion without checking with someone in that field. I've thought of many things that never make it to any Cooper boards." Shutter This is your problem right here,, I found something new, the semi-horizontal particle lines on the tie and proposed a reasonable theory based on other evidence... not a conclusion. You guys spend your time attacking me and denying. Fact is.. those particle lines are still there, where did they come from?

I can't see how marks like that come from handling the tie.. but those "contact" marks indicate a method of particle deposit and may indicate how at least some of the particles got on the tie. The tie was manufactured in 1964 and likely sold in 1964/65 the accumulation of particles are likely from many environments. They have some partial prints but nobody knows if it was Cooper. Many agents claim the prints are of no value but they were used to eliminate suspects. Strangely, McCoy didn't match but some agents still think he was Cooper.. EDIT: The semi-horizontal lines (as worn) are clear in the UV image I posted... The particles aren't entirely random, there are unique semi-horizontal contact patterns that tell us something. I am only suggesting that using the tie to wipe a surface is a good possibility based on other evidence. expand the image.

Sure.. not proof, but interesting Richard Tosaw - "The agents were hopeful that they would find some fingerprints on the aluminum staircase railing or on the handle that lowered the staircase. But the prints that they found were too smeared to be identifiable” Calame and Rhodes - p. 122: "Two days later, 26 November 1971, (SAC) Red Campbell received a teletype from the FBI headquarters, confirming their educated appraisal about the smudges: 'Finger prints found on Flight 305 of no value.’" p. 124: "No matter how you cut it, one of the Salt Lake agents said, from here on out that bunch in Reno will either have to hang together and stonewall it - or come up with some pretty sophisticated explanations why they let the Reno City police dust that plane for prints, and why those damn magazines never got sent back to the FBI Fingerprint Division."

Nonsense, 302's are incomplete and that ASSUMES they even recognized a "wipe". You should know that by now. Smudged prints found...

I didn't realize you had such inside knowledge and know for a fact that prints were obtained from all surfaces and the FBI confirmed no area was wiped. Of course you don't, you are assuming. Prints aren't that easy to get.. We do know by his actions that Cooper was concerned about leaving prints. There are semi-horizontal lines of very concentrated particles on the tie both above and below the pin/tack. They don't appear consistent with folding. Cooper removed the tie and left it behind. Logically, a concentration of particles was smeared semi-horizontally across the tie many times. I am only suggesting that those lines look to be formed from many wiping actions. Considering Cooper removed and left the tie and was concerned with prints that is a very good explanation. Do you have any other possibilities for concentrated particles to form those lines?? Either the tie wiped an object with a concentration of particles or an object with the concentration of particles was wiped on the tie (semi-horizontally) many times, this seems less likely given the location of the lines. What type of object contact could form those lines of particles?

False, you are using weak assumptions to reject a possibility. Bad logic. You have no idea where they got all the prints they have or where they didn't find any. How many did they get from the Lav?? How many were Cooper's?? My statement is 100% valid. Your 100% rejection is irrational, you just don't know.

Not true, at all. The prints have never been confirmed to be from Cooper and he may not have wiped everything (if he did use the tie to wipe prints). My statement is 100% accurate. If anyone can actually read.

FBI DB Cooper file #39 has been posted.. https://vault.fbi.gov/D-B-Cooper