FLYJACK

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.

They could have said we found a "tan back pack"... "a Pioneer" from the harness. Cossey thinks, right that must be my Pioneer B-4 freefall rig,,, They didn't know the model or that it was a bailout rig, not a sport rig. The first people to find the chutes probably didn't know anything about parachutes. Yes, the Emrich thing is documented, I posted it earlier. No, he only sent the two fronts.

Packing card formats are meant for rigs that have the original canopy, I found lots of them with the same brand canopy and container with the container model description. No need to mention the same manufacturer... Original rigs have the canopy on the container label... so they can be identified from the outside. Rigs that have had the canopy brand changed are custom and will be incredibly difficult to find a packing card for now, let alone one in the same format as Hayden's. If the container and canopy are the same brand, as most were unless custom, there was no need to to indicate both. Since the container that the card was in did not say Pioneer maybe the guy saw Pioneer on the harness and wrote that down.. who knows,,, You are setting a criteria that is both unreasonable and irrelevant to the issue. Since, Packing cards vary a lot in format and by rigger and it was a miracle I found one in the same format... it does have the container model on it and I found many others that do as well. Finding a vintage rig packing card that has had the canopy changed would be both difficult and irrelevant. This one is interesting because it says "Pioneer Back", that is the container. The original canopy would also be Pioneer. Hayden's 28 ft error was unfortunate but also irrelevant. It was one single error, he did not have the rig in front of him and we don't even know if was Hayden's error... maybe a typo. It doesn't match the card so 28' is wrong. You are nitpicking at things that would help slightly but are really irrelevant to the issue. Cossey and the card CANNOT both be true.. that is just a fact. That is the issue,,, You still want both to be true,, You can pick and poke around the irrelevant perimeter, but can't reconcile the real issue.

You don't seem to actually grasp the core issue here. Cossey's description and the packing card are incompatible.. both cannot be true. Cossey's later statements both reconcile the rig description incompatibility and support the events of the 24th. They aren't the issue. That and the following reconcile the incompatibility between the packing card and Cossey's description. Lets's cover this AGAIN. Cossey was called at home and asked to lend all 4 chutes,, 2 back, 2 fronts. He agreed to lend his personal rigs from Issaquah. Emrich at Issaquah going to grab all 2 fronts and two backs. Emrich was called and asked to only send the fronts. Emrich sent the two fronts via the police. Cossey was at home and heard about hijacking,,, there goes my chutes... (How would Cossey know that Hayden's were sent and not his until somebody told him) Cossey would not know that his chutes were not used and Hayden's were. He would have legitimately believed his chutes were given to Cooper. So, when he was first contacted he described HIS personal rig, not Hayden's. Very soon after he would have figured out his error. This just explains the inconsistencies between Cossey's description, the packing card and Hayden. It uses FACTS that are corroborated by Cossey's later statements. You don't even need that explanation to understand that both the packing and Cossey's description CANNOT be true. You still want to use both Cossey and the packing card... it is logically impossible... I have reconciled Cossey's error with facts and Cossey's statements, you can't reconcile the errors on the card. There is some perverse irony that you accept Cossey's uncorroborated and conflicting NB6 claim but reject his other uncorroborated and supported statements. If you can reconcile within the evidence, some other way, Cossey's description and the packing card let me know. Otherwise... I am not interested in wasting any more time repeating myself, I got this right.

His records should show the container and identify the canopy.. confirming his claim. He didn't provide them and even claimed he did. That goes to his credibility as this can be a coverup of his error. It is always possible Hayden got an NB6 but not based on what Cossey claimed. And, extremely unlikely, Hayden said it was the same/similar to his tan rig but olive drab. Other than Cossey's claim there is NO corroboration. The Hayden claims from Cossey came after he said he was called about the chutes. He had a day to figure out his error. Cossey believed Emrich was grabbing his personal chutes,,, The entire argument does not rely on Cossey's 30 year old statement. It explains the inconsistency. The argument is the inconsistencies. Cossey's description and the packing card CANNOT both be true. Why is this so difficult,, it is so obvious.

I covered that in my post above.. https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/56036-db-cooper/?do=findComment&comment=5047801

Right, 28 is attributed to Hayden.. one item and one time is incompatible with the card. It could be typo/communication error or Hayden misremembered. Hayden didn't have the packing card, he was going by memory. We don't know. Compare to Cossey, he repeatedly said 28' flat circular.. not an error. Two items and repeated, no error. What is at play is obvious, Cossey was describing HIS personal rig that he believed was sent to Cooper. NOT HAYDEN's. Somebody wrote down what was written on the card, they weren't making it up. and there is nothing on that card to confirm an NB6. We know that Cossey and card are incompatible,,, To accept Cossey's description you must accept all of it and reject several items taken from that card. The only argument... Cossey filled out that packing card incorrectly and even then it does not corroborate his description,, there is no corroboration for Cossey's NB6 claim anywhere, NONE,, only conflicts and sketchy behaviour like NOT providing records. This is simple and so obvious.. I have gone through this so many times,, in a year or two everyone else will see this and agree... why do I even bother. ..

A few things.. Yes, there are 24' conicals.. How do we know that Hayden's missing rig's canopy was military, the container was. I did find a reference to a Reserve 24 navy conical in the Poynter book. But, I have not confirmed Steinthal made a 24' conical.. Here is a 24 ft military Steinthal.. don't know if it is a conical. There are references on other DZ forums... Ultimately, "conical" was taken from the packing card Cossey wrote and Cossey claimed it was a "flat circular".. nothing on that card corroborates Cossey's description.

Yes, some of these things get complicated. The packing card for the missing rig Cooper used vs Cossey. They are incompatible. Both can't be true. The packing card does NOT corroborate Cossey's claim of an NB6. That packing card CANNOT be explained away. since Cossey believed his personal Chutes were sent (via Emrich), Cossey was describing his rig not Hayden's.. and that means the FBI was looking for the wrong rig. Packing card for Hayden's missing chute. MAKE.. Pioneer (Described as Olive Drab military by Hayden, no container model) TYPE.. 24' Ripstop Conical Steinthal (Canopy manufacturer noted as Steinthal) S/N.. 60-9707 (60 leading the S/N number is consistent with the year for Steinthal canopies) Date.. July 1960 Packed.. May 21, 1971 Rigger's# 1579638 by EJ Cossey vs Cossey's description... MAKE.. Not disclosed at the time, (model NB6 Sage Green military, later Cossey claimed Pioneer NB8) TYPE.. 28' flat circular (Canopy manufacturer unknown, flat circular is not a conical) S/N.. (unknown, Cossey claimed he gave the FBI his records, he did not) Date.. (unknown, Cossey claimed he gave the FBI his records, he did not) Packed.. (inferred after the 26th) Rigger's# (inferred after the 26th) by (inferred after the 26th) Up soon Sketch A vs sketch B showdown... and it isn't A....

This is interesting... The parachute card for Hayden's.. Tan civilian rig left in plane. It is described on the card as.. MAKE.. Pioneer (I confirmed that it is a P2-B-24 civilian, not on card) TYPE.. 26' - Ripstop Conical (note, no make of canopy listed) S/N.. 226 Date.. Sept 1957 Packed.. May 21, 1971 Rigger's# 1579638 by EJ Cossey The missing chute's card was found in the back chute left behind with the following data in the FBI files. MAKE.. Pioneer (Described as Olive Drab military, no container model) TYPE.. 24' Ripstop Conical Steinthal (Canopy manufacturer noted as Steinthal) S/N.. 60-9707 (60 leading the S/N number is consistent with the year for Steinthal canopies) Date.. July 1960 Packed.. May 21, 1971 Rigger's# 1579638 by EJ Cossey Hayden got the two chutes packed by Cossey together on May 21, 1971. This is Hayden's missing back pack rig and the one Cooper used. So far, so good.. The problem was that the missing chute has both Pioneer and Steinthal whereas the found civilian chute only has Pioneer. Here is why.. both the canopy and container for Hayden's found chute were Pioneer.. whereas the missing Cooper chute was a Pioneer container and Steinthal canopy.. I found a similar packing card with the make and model on it, P1-B-24, but only Pioneer written.. Why because it had a Pioneer container and Pioneer canopy.. So, the reason Cooper's missing rig has both Pioneer and Steinthal is because the container and canopy are different manufacturers while for Hayden's recovered chute they are the same. Both of Hayden's rigs were Pioneer containers.. we do not know the model of the container Cooper used, Cossey's description and the missing rig packing card are irreconcilable. Both can't be true.

No, as I have said many times Hayden's tan chute left in the plane is a P2-B-24. It is a CIVILIAN model sold to the public though some military pilots did use it. It goes back to about 1939 and is NOT a military rig. We know Hayden's missing chute taken by Cooper was military because it was olive drab.

There is no corroboration on that packing card.. the canopy size is wrong, the type is wrong and very unlikely a 24' conical is in an NB6 and since Cossey was clear for years from 1971 that it was a 28' flat circular.. it can't be according to the packing card.. That card is incompatible with Cossey's description. This is just a FACT. I don't have it backwards, the burden of proof is provide evidence to demonstrate a claim is valid.. The NB6 is ONLY a claim made by Cossey... the burden is not proving a claim if false. Cossey never provided proof when he could have and there is no corroboration. None. Cossey was consistent from 1971, that isn't the same as being factual. Your self imposed capricious and arbitrary litmus test is irrelevant. A trick to exclude info you don't want considered. Cossey's description was sage green nylon container and sage green nylon harness, Hayden was olive drab container tan cloth harness... NB6's are Sage green and don't conflate colour fade today with a 15 year old chute in 1971. I have always said he claimed he was called the evening of the 24th, it is not confirmed, that doesn't mean it didn't happen and I am not relying on that. Besides, you don't know it didn't happen. Since the FBI sent out a detailed description on the afternoon of the 25th with the chest reserve that only Cossey or somebody who had opened the chute would know then we know Cossey was called sometime between the evening of the 24th and mid 25th, before he met with the FBI in-person on the 26th and appears aware of Hayden's chutes being sent. Ironic, that you reject Cossey's claim that he was called that evening but you accept his claim of an NB6, neither is corroborated. What file is this?.. I posted it and another FBI file regarding the missing front chute description before the 26th. Cossey's later stories indicate exactly what he believed, that HIS personal chutes were used this is corroborated by Emrich. He just never corrected his error. How do you know everything from Cossey "checks out" from 1971, there is nothing to corroborate his claim. "Checks out" does not equal true. You can say he was consistent, that doesn't mean what he said was true. Those are not the same. I think you have conflated consistent with true... not the same thing. Cossey's story changed after the FBI case died down and pressure was long gone, he was lying by omission in 1971. Later, he just said what he believed the evening of the 24th. If you are getting a set of bailout chutes for a plane you don't want them to be completely different with one difficult to use. You want two similar, simple and interchangeable.. Strawman.. "Why would Cossey just have a pair of WW2 parachute packs just laying around" what makes you think he did and why are you asking me a red herring question. Hayden got them from a surplus store and they got Cossey to pack them. Hayden meant the same type, the Olive Drab was the military version and the Tan P2 was the civilian version, very simple, consistent and doesn't confirm an NB6, otherwise the same but different model numbers. The 302's are full of errors, conflations and miscommunications,, the only single outlier in all this is the 28' attributed to Hayden. Strangely, you keep calling the chutes rare as if true or means anything. Hayden did get a P2, the other one was not a P2, it was similar but the military version.. There were many of these era containers that were virtually identical with different model numbers. Probably really cheap. Cossey and the packing card are incompatible. So, can't be both. It isn't a Chinese food menu, you can't pick and choose only the things you like. A 28' flat circular is incompatible with a 24' conical.. Sage Green is not Olive Drab. Cossey believed his personal chutes were grabbed from Issaquah by Emrich. It all fits.. If you choose Cossey's description you must accept all of it and the packing card must be discarded... and vice versa. You can't accept part of Cossey's description and reject the incompatible part.. it all gets tossed unless you have some corroboration.

Cossey is the only source for the NB6/8 description, there is no corroboration, only conflicts. The burden of proof is on the affirmative, not negation. Prove it was an NB6/8, not it wasn't. Cossey has told many conflicting stories, you can't just ignore the lies, misinformation and inconsistencies but accept this one aspect. That would never fly with a witness. Cossey's description in the FBI files conflicts with Hayden's. Cossey's description conflicts with the missing chute packing card. Cossey never supplied his packing records, lied to the FBI about it and later claimed he did have the records. Cossey lied to the FBI. Lied by omission and about his records. Cossey lied to active FBI agent Carr. Cossey changes the description form NB6 to NB8,,, why, it wasn't modified. Cossey would have learned of his error within a day or two but never corrected his error. Lied by omission. He knew by the 26th for that in person FBI interview but must have talked to the FBI prior, Cossey claimed he was called the evening of the 24th.. a file on the 25th describes the front reserves in detail, that had to come form Cossey. Cossey must have talked to somebody between the evening of the 24th and late afternoon 25th. Cossey was contacted and agreed to lend all 4 of his chutes, Emrich was grabbing all 4 from Issaquah including 2 backs but was contacted and told to send only the fronts,, Cossey was not aware that Hayden's back chutes were sent instead of his. During the hijacking he thought those were his back chutes used by Cooper. Emrich didn't know about Hayden only that he had sent two fronts. Cossey claimed he was called the evening of the 24th, the back chute found was described and he described his NB6,, how can this be if he didn't even know about Hayden's chutes being sent. Cossey's later stories revealed his belief that he thought they were his two personal back chutes, the NB8 bailout (Cossey was a pilot) and a B-4 freefall). Neither match Hayden's. Cossey was telling us what he believed at the time of the hijacking. Hayden's returned back chute was completely different from Cossey's NB6 description.. Hayden said they were the same, the tan one was a civilian version early 1940's, the Olive Drab a military version by colour of the same type. Unlikely Hayden would have two completely different bailout rigs, they would be a matching pair. Hayden never met Cossey, he bought the chutes at a surplus store and the store arranged for them to be packed. Everyone assumed Cossey owned them prior to Hayden but there is no proof, we don't know. Mark M's experience had no bearing on the identity of Hayden's missing chute. The 28' thing, that is odd but Cossey claimed a flat circular which is consistent with a 28'. The packing card said conical which is consistent wth a 24'. The FBI file seems to attribute 28 to Hayden, that could be an error/typo, or it may be a conflation with Cossey's early description. The 302's have errors and conflations. They are facts, they are investigative notes. Ultimately, Cossey and the missing chute packing card are incompatible, both can't be true and the totality of evidence supports the packing card not Cossey by a long shot. COMBINING the inconsistencies from Cossey, the fact that he never provided his packing records and the evidence that he believed his personal chutes were taken from Issaquah that evening and sent to Cooper WITH the details on the missing chute packing card it is overwhelmingly clear what happened.. There is really no way to dismiss that packing card as not belonging to the missing chute. It was signed by Cossey on the same date as Hayden's remaining one. AND where did it come from. It had to be Hayden's missing chute. To accept Cossey's NB8 claim you must reject that packing card. You need corroboration that it was an NB8 and proof that the packing card is wrong. I can't see any way to do that. I am 100% on this unless there is new information. and agreed ultimately it doesn't really help us solve the case now. It only means they were looking for the wrong chute, it/parts might have been found but rejected. The premise to the argument that Cooper died because nothing was found is false. We don't know. and Cossey screwed everyone and may have undermined the solving of this case long ago. Cooper just picked the newer chute. There is nothing else to read into the chute selection. and Gryder's rig does not match Cossey's or Hayden's...