FLYJACK

Wind in Seattle, SSE at 8PM... Averaged winds at Salem and Portland were used as a proxy for wind direction.. this is a guess for the LZ and Placard find location, it is not a fact. Salem, Portland and Seattle are too far from the LZ/Placard to have any confidence.

Even more corroboration for the "FBI" flight path...

The 11:30 PM store break location in was 3 miles South and 0.5 miles East from point A on the LZ map... it is getting close to the East Fork Lewis River..

They claim "military style".. probably based on the corrugated sole matching a footprint. There are/were slip on ankle boots/shoes with corrugated soles... I have an old pair of Doc Martins like that with "military style" corrugated soles but look like regular shoes. Also,, I received the big Penny's catalog and there are no men's ties in it. That suggests the tie was purchased in store 1964/5 not via mail order... If Cooper purchased the tie he was in the US at that time. There are lots of shoes/boots in the catalog,, I'll have to check those. It may be what is called a "service shoe/boot"

The initial search area came from NWA and the crew.. We are now expected to reject the corroboration from the crew, the air force, the chase pilots, Boeing, NWA and controllers to invent an alternate flight path to move the plane over Tina Bar to explain the money find.. nonsense. Nov 26. "The crew of the above airline has now spotted a possible area for this suspected departure of the hijacker to be over Merwin Lake, near Woodland, Washington. A search is now being conducted by helicopter and ground crews working out of the Woodland Police Department."

I never noticed this before,, "According to him a high wind was blowing at Merwin Dam last night. At about 11:30Pm there was a burglary of a grocery store located roughly 10 miles South of the dam. Survival rations were taken including beef jerky, cigarettes, gloves, etc. The person who broke in was wearing military type boots with a corregated sole." Average walking speed is 3.1 mph, if it was Cooper he could have walked 9-10 miles in the three hours between landing and the store break in. In other words, it matches the LZ south of Merwin.

The wind: Claiming the SSW wind was a fact and known is borderline insanity. The FBI admitted it was an estimate based on two assumptions. 1 - the wind at Portland and Salem was the same as the LZ and the Placard find location. 2 - the wind data was averaged over an hour. The wind at 8:30 at Portland was 180 deg S. The problems with the FBI assumptions are obvious, Portland and Salem are far from the LZ and Placard find so using it as a proxy is extremely unreliable. Winds change within miles. Averaging the winds over an hour is not reliable either, they can change within minutes. We don't have the wind data at the LZ or Placard find at the precise time so using SSW winds are a guess. Wind map variability. https://a.atmos.washington.edu/~ovens/wxloop.cgi?sfc_wa+24 Winds at Toledo at 8 PM were S. A South wind spins the LZ..

Flight path: Image from search HQ shows the "FBI" flight path on the wall.

Chutes,, Two back chutes observed were olive drab green.. Hayden's was tan.

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.