FLYJACK

and Ryan keeps claiming this news piece was from the 25th... printed on the 26th.. It was printed in the PI final edition on the 26th, no indiction it was from the UPI reporter or even from the 25th....

As vigorous as you've been arguing about it, then it sure seems like you cared about it as evidence. Your misunderstanding isn’t my responsibility. 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. No it doesn’t, Cossey would have learned of the Dummy some time on the 25th.. You are now claiming to know who, how and when the FBI contacted people. Unlikely Emrich would have that info and the other chute description “flat circular” was likely from Cossey, Hayden never mentioned it and it is inconstant with the packing card. 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. Cherry picking,, selecting your own time frame.. Everything Cossey said is suspect not just after 2003. Everything needs corroboration and analysis. 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. But that is your assertion, that you proved Cossey was not contacted. Using ridiculous analogies doesn't help your argument. 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? In person was at the Seattle office… you claimed first contact, it wasn’t. Maybe Andy Anderson was D.B. Cooper? Maybe Tina and Anderson were lovers? You have no idea what happened. Yes, the point is YOU don't know. YOU are claiming you can prove Cossey knew of Hayden before the chute description. Well they for DAMN SURE do not prove what you are claiming they do. I have said I can't prove it, so why are you accusing me of something I didn't claim. But you don't, clearly. Very little,, but I was referring to your peer review comment.. peer review doesn’t work in this case. 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." No, you don’t have to… why would you something you are incapable of doing.. TBAR is different though, there are really endless explanations that can fit within the evidence.. For Cooper's chute description we have lots of red flags, inconsistencies and conflicts. To reconcile them within the evidence is very constrained and difficult. I can only see one possibility,, I presented it but can’t prove it as as fact.. and you can’t disprove it. TBAR and Cossey’s chute description are not comparable. NICE try though. Again, I don't have to present an explanation to have an opinion about YOUR explanation. No you don’t, to have an opinion. The issue is your opinion is not supported by the evidence you claim. You've been presenting as evidence for days: I presented evidence to support an explanation and even claimed it is not proven. Again, twisting my position to fit your narrative. 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. You don't know when Cossey was lying, telling half truths or the truth. Cossey also lied to the FBI,, 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. My argument is that Cossey gave the description of his personal back chute. That would have occurred some time between the evening of the 24th and the in person interview,, potentially even during that interview. You do not have any proof that he didn't. He could have been contacted by somebody else or before or after those agents comments. 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. They started contacting at the early AM on the 25th, not the evening. Cossey claimed he was contacted that evening that would be before the FBI tried per that doc. 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. I didn't say that, classic strawman Ryan, weak. I also never said I can prove this.. I have said I can't.. I was pointing out that peer review does not work. No, you haven’t disproven it with case files.. Your opinion is not proof. I have those files, I posted those files and they are not dispositive. 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. No, Hayden’s missing chute was not a 26’.. those are conical.. and there are lots of other conflicts that need to be reconciled. Ryan, you have screwed this up.. I have presented a theory to reconcile a very complex set of inconstancies and within the evidence.. You have elevated your opinion to claim you have disproved it, you have NOT. In fact, some of your arguments are complete nonsense. You use strawman arguments, and restrict Cossey’s statements to fit your own bias. Fact is, on the 24th Cossey did not know Hayden’s back chutes were used instead of his, Emrich did not know about Hayden.. he knew to send fronts only.. So, when did Cossey learn of Hayden, he could have only learned of Hayden from the FBI or the individual who initially contacted him. When is unknown. It could have been in the same conversation that he gave the description of his chutes.. Unlikely an agent would even know Cossey knew about Hayden or assume he already did.. So, no you didn't disprove it. You have an opinion based on faith not facts. IMO, a poorly constructed one. Nothing wrong with that but don't claim you have disproved something you haven’t. I can see Cossey being contacted, the chute left behind described, Cossey giving the description of his personal rig and the FBI bringing up Hayden... they would not have known Cossey didn't know about Hayden's chutes being used. and stop with all the strawman nonsense.

The FBI docs refer to the fronts as Cossey's.. he made them, he knows them. Since Emrich sent the dummy in error how could he describe that rig (know it drunk).. makes no sense. That description likely came from Cossey. Also, in the same doc "flat circular" is used to describe Hayden's chute,, that is Cossey's, Hayden never used that. Cossey was initially contacted and asked for two fronts and two backs, he agreed to lend all 4 from Issaquah but didn't know what they were being used for.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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. .

No, that person was definitely not Cooper.

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..

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..

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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....

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.

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.

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...

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.