FLYJACK

Yes he was a pilot.

You don't know that is a fact. Where did this description come from??? not Emrich... "5:57 AM on the 25th, there is a duplicate at 5:10 AM, Where did this detailed description for both front chutes come from.. Cossey?... Cossey claimed he was contacted when the plane landed in Reno, Unless that description came from somebody else but who would know the chute colour and the shroud colour unless it was opened before being given to Cooper. " Cossey was interviewed was in person on the 26th,,, you think they didn't talk to him on the phone before an in person interview.. "Hey Coss FBI here,, come in on the 26th for an in person interview but don't tell us anything about the chutes till then.. mmmkay.." now, you are throwing out strawman stuff.. you want me to explain why Cossey had something you think he shouldn't. Cossey claimed it was his personal chute, he was a pilot and instructor.. Who knows. You don't know what he had or why. He did have an NB6 no D rings.. and he did jump with it, he claimed. It was a Cooper replica. It was not a Pioneer. Gave it to Tosaw. No, you are still wrong, a conical is not a flat circular, they are different types of canopies. Why do you keep ignoring one of the most important facts. Either Cossey is wrong or the packing card is, there is no reconciling it.

Yeah, I know all that.. that timeline does not conflict.. Cossey claimed he was called the night of the hijacking, that is not documented and may or may not be true with Cossey but when he gave the description of his personal chute he thought his chute was used not Haydens. Not everything is documented. You'd expect Cossey to have mentioned Hayden in that description.. There is no indication Cossey was aware of Hayden BEFORE he gave his first description. He must have been made aware within a day or so, 25th or 26th. Like I said. Another thing Cossey would have checked his records to confirm chutes he packed for Hayden six months earlier.. no mention. You need to address the conflicts between Cossey's description and the packing card for the missing chute.. they are too strong.. not the same rig. Maybe, take my side and try to argue it (to yourself), I think you might see it differently. There is no corroboration of Cossey's claim that Hayden's missing chute was an NB6/8... only conflicts.

It could have said Pioneer and Steinthal. It only matters indirectly.. it isn't key to this at all. Cossey refers to the chute left behind as "the pioneer", if both were Pioneers why did he call only one the Pioneer. It supports the argument that Cossey was describing his NB6 and not Hayden's missing chute. The argument doesn't require this. Not all NB6's were made by Pioneer. He probably didn't refer to it as a Pioneer because his wasn't. Key, Cossey called the canopy a "flat circular" consistent with a 28', the packing card said "conical" that is consistent with a 24'. A conical and flat circular are not the same thing, they are very different types. So, Cossey got nothing right according to the packing card for Hayden's missing back chute. He even called it an NB8 because he modded it for a 28' "flat circular", that is not a 24'.. Cossey's description and the packing card for the missing chute are incompatible. This is so simple once you see it.. This incompatibility can be reconciled.. Cossey believed his personal back chutes were going to be picked up from The Loft and given to Cooper. Emrich was getting all 4 chutes when he was contacted and told they only needed the two fronts because they had secured Hayden's two back chutes.. Cossey was never aware of Hayden's back chutes being used instead of his. Cossey was contacted and told which chutes were left behind (he claims the night of the hijacking but that isn't confirmed) and he assumed it was his NB6 used by Cooper. Cossey was sincere and provided the description of HIS NB6/8 that he thought Cooper used, not Hayden's chute. Perfectly understandable from his perspective. But he must have figured out his error within a day or so.. he just never corrected it. He continued to describe HIS personal NB6/8. He never supplies his packing records because it would expose his error. His story with the FBI was consistent because he couldn't expose his error.. his public story was shifting, changing and contradictory. There is no corroboration to Cossey's claim that Cooper's missing chute was an NB6/8. I don't even recall Cossey specifically claiming that chute packed for Hayden was an NB6/8. Hayden's missing chute was NOT a P2... those were tan mostly civilian use. There were many similar Olive Drab military versions. If you want a pair of bailout rigs for regulations, you want cheap and similar, not completely different and one customized top of the line. Makes no sense. Bottom line, Cossey and the packing card for Hayden's missing chute are incompatible... you can't pick Cossey. He told us.. he claimed many times that the rig Cooper was his personal NB6/8. We know Cossey lied to the media and Carr. He lied by omission to the FBI by not correcting his error and claiming he gave the FBI all his records, he didn't. Put on your Prosecutor hat, this is an open and shut case. Gather all the pieces and run it through the gears for a while I am confident you will see it.

Not true. The type is also inconsistent. The colour of the container, the harness v Hayden. Cossey's description is inconsistent with the packing card info. Packing card or Cossey?? Choose wisely.

Give it time, you will get this... it is beyond obvious to me. Cossey was describing HIS personal chute. A P2-B-24 was a Pioneer sub model, a mostly civilian variant. That category was not rare, that specific P2 model may be rare today since it came out around 1939. Hayden's other chute was NOT a P2-B-24, it was something similar but a military variant being olive drab. There were others, P1, P3, P4 and military variations with other numbers.. Hayden's/Cooper's chute could have been any number of those.. not rare. So, the too rare argument doesn't apply. Cossey would have figured out his mistake within a day or two, so he would not have claimed they were his to the FBI. He was contacted and honestly believed it was his NB6/8 and described it.. Hayden = Olive Drab with cloth Tan harness vs Cossey = Sage Green with Sage Green harness. These inconsistencies add up,, you can dismiss them individually as errors or misunderstandings but in totality they are clear and overwhelming. I outlined many major inconsistencies, I really don't want to keep repeating them. A 28' flat circular vs a 24' conical... NOT an error, completely incompatible on two levels. Cossey called it an NB8, that is NOT a 24' canopy. You can't dismiss this. Loaning Gear to a Friend Earlier that evening, skydiver Earl Cossey, a master rigger, received a telephone call at home. The call was from a business associate who also happened to be the manager of Sea-Tac International Airport. The airport manager asked Cossey for two backpacks and two chest-mount reserves as soon as possible but could not disclose the reason he needed them. Cossey admits he wondered about the manager’s request, “But I trusted him completely and did as I was told,” he said. Cossey called his drop zone in Issaquah, Washington, and asked a person who was staying there to collect the rigs and hand them over to authorities. Police rushed the rigs in a patrol car from the drop zone to Sea-Tac International. Later that evening, Cossey heard on the news that there was a hijacking in progress. He was stunned at the revelation that this was why the authorities had asked for his parachutes. “I thought, ‘Oh crap! There go my parachutes!’ ” Cossey recalled. “I was just laughing at the stupidity of that guy and thought, ‘This guy’s nuts.’” Either you believe Cossey or the missing chute packing card info,,, it can't be both. It isn't so simple as Cossey owned the chest reserves and it was assumed he was the previous owner of Hayden's chutes. Cossey is the only source of the NB6/8 claim, since he got the rest of his description wrong why does this have any cred... it doesn't. Anyway, I am done with this subject and 100% confident.. This will be accepted by everyone a year from now.

Dan Gryder's found chute,, Ryan nailed it in his videos, I don't know where he gets the patience but it is not even an NB6... It is an AF B-4 harness and that might be a B-12 container.. Similar to this.. and similar... the one on the right, notice it is a converted right side pull (the left one is an earlier version) That 1943 Hayes canopy Dan Gryder is claiming was Cooper's was not.. it was a 1960 Steinthal. So, the crazy irony of all this mess is that Gryder claims it matches Cossey's NB6/8, it doesn't and Cossey claimed his personal NB6 was used by Cooper, it wasn't... (In time everyone will see this) We have two compounding and intertwined layers of misinformation from Cossey and Gryder... this is difficult to explain to non Cooper experts. Now that Gryder has disparaged and blamed the FBI for lies and a coverup, he has nowhere to go but down...that was the death throes of a failing narrative and peak Dan Gryder. No Dan Gryder, when you read this.. that wasn't Cooper's canopy or container.. easily debunked... and McCoy wasn't Cooper, you didn't solve the case you made a fool of yourself on national media. The McCoy kids seem sincere but don't know the two hijacking cases very well. McCoy was not Cooper.

Skip Hall is eliminated.. let's be real and stop wasting time. Some suspects/POI's can be eliminated easily others can't without more information. It is actually difficult to eliminate most suspects.. Skip is easy to eliminate. You need to be honest here, Hall's forehead is not Cooper's, no witness mentioned those severe lines and they are SEVERE.. That is so unique it would never be missed. He might as well have had a tattoo on his forehead. Hahneman's missing teeth in context. Don't believe everything you hear. Only one person out of about 50 made that claim. You cannot explain any plausible way for all NORJAK witnesses to miss Skip Hall's extremely creased forehead. Once you see it you can't unsee it. I know many people are friends of Limbach or Cunningham and that may cause them to avoid being critical, but you know I am right. If people want to treat the Vortex as a social club that is fine,, it is not my thing. If I see something that obvious I'll point it out, it isn't personal... You want to got down rabbit holes for entertainments sake, go ahead. also, Skip's scar on the cheek may have been temporary, so it can be plausibly explained and not dispositive whereas the severe forehead lines cannot be explained...

Cossey still claimed they were his chutes. Some took that to mean his before they were sold to Hayden. I did find a news article where Cossey admitted that the chutes came from Hayden. Cossey's stories changed and conflicted over the years.. he told different stories to different people. If he thought his chutes were being sent to Cooper when did he learn that Hayden's chutes were used?? We don't know.

You weren't wrong, I should have been more specific in my terminology... I do that sometimes trying to recall specific things.. this issue is complex and not easy to convey clearly. There is a ton of info, nuance and detail that gets overwhelming to write out... I have 10,000 files on this... and I am having a hard time keeping everything straight. Cossey used "round" and "flat circular" to describe the 28' canopy. A "flat circular" is consistent with a 28' and it is not a 24' "conical" as described by the packing card. Remember Cossey referred to it as a modified NB6 and an NB8, that does NOT match a 24' canopy. An analogy might be putting wider wheels on your car but narrower tires,, yeah it is possible but not really done. I have not been able to find a 24' in an normal NB6 or as Cossey called his an NB8. In regards to Cossey it makes no sense for a 24' to be in an "NB-8".. it just didn't happen. Of all things I posted in that long comment I thought this was the least controversial... I am 100% on this, Cossey believed his personal NB6 was used by Cooper, he was describing that rig, not Hayden's. His description conflicts with the packing card for the missing chute and Hayden's description. The light bulb moment was reading that Emrich was about to grab 4 chutes, 2 backs and 2 fronts for The Loft but was contacted and told to only send the fronts as they had secured Hayden's chute. Hayden said his missing chute was Olive Drab,,, NB6's are Sage Green. Hayden needed a pair of cheap bailout rigs to meet regulations, he never intended to use them, it make sense that he bought two similar cheap WW2 era container vs one newer premium modified NB6. So, Cossey sitting at home quite reasonably believed that Cooper got his personal back chutes from Issaquah. He was told a tan chute was left so he assumed Cooper took his personal NB6/8. Cossey would have figured this error out within days but never clarified. Cossey would have checked his packing records and known he got it wrong. He never gave the FBI his records as that would have exposed his error. He even told the FBI that he gave them everything he had, the FBI said they never got them. Cossey was being considered to jump the test recreation, if he came clean and said he got the chute wrong he would have lost cred.. Ultimately, he wasn't use for the test and was not happy with the FBI. This is solid. Put all the pieces together and test it. That is the only explanation for all the inconsistencies. So, Cossey screwed the FBI, screwed Carr, screwed the media, screwed researchers and the Vortex... The takeaway is the FBI was looking for the wrong chute and it may have been found and rejected,, that probably wouldn't have given us Cooper's identification but it would have helped. We can no longer say nothing was found,,, WE don't know. This is a big deal. I have looked at the found chutes in the files and there is no way to assess them. Cossey screwed everything.

This is Cossey's interview... the tell, he says HIS PERSONAL BACKPACKS WERE GRABBED FROM THE LOFT. That is what he believed when he gave the (wrong) description of the chute Cooper used. He just never accepted or corrected it. Maybe he was just never asked and never told. Note, he doesn't mention moving the ripcord to the other side for a harder pull, he refers to it being flatter on an NB8. HIS PERSONAL CHUTE, not Hayden's 24' missing Steinthal. https://www.uspa.org/about-uspa/uspa-news/the-secrets-of-db-cooper-part-one-notorious-flight-305 Gear Details The evening of the hijacking, Cossey received another call from authorities after the jet landed in Reno, and he then learned what happened to his gear. Cossey explains, “The skydiver staying at the loft had grabbed two of my personal backpacks and two chest packs from the drop zone. One was my B-4 sport rig and the other was my Pioneer NB-8, a Navy emergency chute used for pilots.” Over the phone, Cossey learned that Cooper took his NB-8 pilot emergency backpack and that his freefall rig remained in the aircraft. Cossey explained, “When I learned which rig was missing, I thought, ‘Oh, this guy’s crazy.’” The Navy emergency rig was specifically designed for pilots for emergency bailouts at potentially low altitudes. The round canopy did not have a sleeve or diaper to stage the opening, ensuring an extremely fast opening. “That rig has a bad opening shock. It’ll just rip your crotch apart,” Cossey said bluntly. Aside from the opening shock, Cossey was unsure whether Cooper was even able to pull the ripcord. He explained, “The ripcords for the sport rigs were bent up so you could easily see and grab them. The Navy rig’s ripcord is designed to lie very flat so that it doesn’t catch on anything. If Cooper was wearing his raincoat, I don’t know if he’d even be able to find and pull the ripcord in the dark.” Unlike the freefall rig, the Navy rig was significantly thinner, made of slick nylon and had absolutely no padding in the leg straps. “The differences in the rigs were obvious” Cossey said, “and anyone with any skydiving experience would definitely take the sport rig.” However, Cossey noted, “If he had military experience, he may have used the military rig because that’s what he was familiar with. If he didn’t have any experience, he probably did some awful maneuvers going out of that plane. I’ve seen jumpers spiral violently and never recover. I don’t know if he would have even been able to regain his senses.”

I recall Cossey saying somewhere maybe in an interview that he modified the container for a 28' and referred to it at times as an NB8. You aren't putting a 24' in an expanded (NB6/8) and calling it an NB8. Gryder must have read that as well. The canopy was a Steinthal, the container was a Pioneer. It comes down to believing the packing card or Cossey, can't be both. We can reconcile this... Cossey believed his back chutes were going to be used, Emrich was about to get them when they told him they only needed the fronts.. Cossey was not aware of this and assumed his back chutes were sent and his NB6 was used by Cooper, it was Hayden's. That is the reason Cossey's description is wrong and Cossey's story never made sense and changed over the years, it doesn't match the packing card and doesn't match Hayden's. Hayden's chute left behind was described to Cossey so he got that one right. A "conical" is NOT a "flat circular". Cossey was describing his chute not Hayden's.

This is very important to get right.. I can correct both things here with better context. I should have clarified. Both of Hayden's chutes were conical.. Cossey used the term "round" and "flat circular"... Cossey referred to the NB6 he claimed Cooper used as a 28' "flat circular" which is NOT a "conical", these are different but is consistent with a 28' canopy. Cossey got the shape of the canopy wrong for Cooper's chute, the size, and although both backs were Pioneer containers he only referred to one as a Pioneer. Cossey did not get Cooper's chute description right and is unreliable. Since he is the only source of the "NB6/8" description and his description was off there is no reason to believe he got that right when Hayden thought the chutes were the same but different colour. NB6's are Vietnam era, Hayden's recovered chute is early 1940's. It might be possible to put a smaller canopy (24') into an NB6 but it isn't something really done.. You don't normally find NB6's with 24' canopies. Cossey claimed he made the NB6 larger and even called it an NB8 at times to fit the 28'. Cooper's canopy according to the packing card was a 24'. We can believe the packing card info for Cooper's chute found on the plane or Cossey... not both. Conclusion, it is extremely unlikely that Cooper used and NB6 container. It was probably an olive drab 1940's era Pioneer similar to Hayden's tan "civilian" chute. Cossey's description of Cooper's chute (NB6) was his chute he believed was taken to Cooper from Issaquah. It wasn't.. unknown to Cossey they used Hayden's back chutes,, Cossey would have learned this error within days but never corrected it.

I have decided to break my self imposed boycott for a post as DZ may be gone forever soon… Here are some of my current thoughts for year 2024.. Merry Christmas.. whether you agree with these comments or not.. take em or leave em. Why did Cooper try to give the stews ransom money (and other criminals do this), Simple, it taints or compromises the witnesses, are they going to be completely honest if they got some cash… Nope. They will “obstruct” if they have taken money. Dan Gryder youtube videos,,, temporarily sucking all the oxygen from the case. It is obvious to anyone with a very basic understanding of the case that the McCoy container and canopy he claims to have found do NOT match Cooper’s, not even close. It is as wrong as can be. McCoy was not Cooper, the FBI McCoy files and Cooper files are clear. The media is a sucker for these hyped stories. Gryder's 15 minutes are up. He has nowhere to go from here. Now, attacking the FBI won't go over well for credibility, he is cornered and just humiliating himself. His only allies are the fake comments left on his youtube channel praising him.. after he deletes all the legit ones. Is any publicity good publicity? Andrade.. stylometry for text under 3000 words is "random noise". This is a quote from the inventor of R Stylo. I did a lot of Stylo work using R Stylo sodtware on the letters before Andrade was doing it. Dayton has no letter connection to Gunther. It is random noise there is no signal there. Stylo is useless for short text. Need 3000 words or more… Many jumped on this,, no, no, no, it is noise, no signal. Gunther… Dave and I were right… Gunther did not make it all up.. Yes, many of you were incorrect.. He was contacted by somebody claiming to be Cooper and somebody about 10 years later, that may have been a hoaxer or possibly Cooper himself. The consensus was wrong. Pro tip, never follow a consensus, especially in this case. Skip Hall… NO, Look at images and he has extreme creases across his forehead and down the sides. Not one Norjak witness mentioned this and it would not be missed. Skip’s creases are severe and eliminate him. Skip is the NEO KC. Eliminated. Sorry Mr Limbach. Skip may be an interesting guy, not Cooper. NOBODY would have missed those forehead creases. Not to mention, no actual connection to NORJAK. That is not Cooper's forehead. Cunningham.. has messed up the timestamps for the flightpath map and misled the Vortex. He has shifted the time by two minutes at the Columbia River.. 8:18 has become 8:16.. this is NOT accurate and NOT backed by any evidence. It is misleading to move Cooper’s jump time 2 minutes or 6 miles South at the Columbia. Cunningham made two distinct errors, he has speculated that the SAGE map creator marked the times off by one minute because there is an unlabelled mark is missing early in the flightpath, this is pure speculation. When the path is analyzed and the segments measured over the entire path the missing mark is irrelevant, the plane was travelling at a relatively consistent speed. It is a hard to explain but the area missing the mark has wider spaces between marks so over a larger time increment there is no change in plane speed. Second, Cunningham missed a mark N of the Columbia, look at the segment on his map before the Columbia and after, it is nearly triple the distance between minute marks,, obviously this is impossible, you can’t unsee it, the plane can’t speed up and slow down that much over that distance. Do not accept Cunningham’s recalculated flight map times they are simply not accurate and misrepresenting the evidence. This is impossible. 8:15 to 8:16 is almost 3x the distance from 8:16 to 8:17... WRONG WRONG WRONG Cooper’s LZ,,, It keeps moving further South, there is no evidence for this. At 8:09 there was a mark on the FDR and pitch correction, that had to be Cooper going to the bottom of the stairs initiating drag. At 8:11, there were increasing pressure fluctuations on the gauge culminating in an extreme fluctuation felt by the crew and described as a bump. So, the key question is how long were the fluctuations to the final bump. The idea that the 8:11 fluctuations were Cooper going down the stairs doesn’t fit the evidence, if Cooper was going down the stairs at 8:11 then the plane would have pitched then and there would have been a mark on the FDR at 8:11 not 8:09. Cooper went down the stairs at 8:09 marked on the FDR.. (There is a possibility the 8:09 FDR and 8:11 fluctuations are the same thing and times got messed up, the FBI checked 8:09 time on the tape but always possible there is an error) So, the 8:11 fluctuations were not Cooper going down the stairs. I can see Cooper jumping from about 8:12 to 8:15.. and 8:15 is about Battleground. If Cooper jumped and pulled at 8:12 he could have drifted up to 6 miles N (2 minutes on map) to about 8:10, that could put him just N of the Lewis River. So, my LZ is just N of the Lewis to Battleground. The consensus moving the LZ more and more south is not based on evidence but groupthink. If Cooper jumped at 8:15 Battleground he could have drifted to about 8:13 on the map... a no pull is straight down of course but a no pull is extremely unlikely. Ron, the hydrologist new to the Vortex drew a conclusion without all the TBAR information, he did have the Palmer report. TBAR is full of debris. His TBAR assumption was incorrect. 99% the money came from the River. TBAR was a debris trap. The insect wing scale found on the tie appears to match a casebearing moth tough I couldn't find a SEM image for these species, there are two virtually identical species identified, one is extreme Southern US to South America, the other is virtually everywhere so no help there. These are two different species. The fungus found on the tie matches penicillium. Everywhere, may have grown in storage after NORJAK. The hair/fiber on the tie matches cashmere. This might be what they call a clue. Foundry… Nope, another rabbit hole, foundries use specific sand with binders added not typical river sand like Fazio’s. That waste sand is unique to the metal used by the foundry and foundry waste sand is reused for many other purposes. My latest research indicates to me that Cooper obtained the tie weeks before the hijacking and it wasn’t from a thrift shop or anything random like that. I have matched it to a specific environment and identified a person. This includes the updated particles like Uranuim, Thorium and Mercury… the key to understanding the tie is not to pick one or two particles and try to find a matching environment but to match the wide variety to an environment. The wide diversity of particles is the unique fingerprint. There is no way to 100% confirm the tie environment. and NO, not metallurgy. Give it up. The bomb expert. Interesting guy, but he concluded the bomb was likely not real mainly because the legal charge is higher using a real bomb vs fake,,, this is misleading and out of context, in 1971 hijacking was a capital offence so real or fake bomb didn't matter. The bomb question was Daren's signature line and funny because nobody really knows so answers were like a Rorschach. Most everyone said fake.. since nobody really knows why does everyone choose fake.. so I took the other side and argued it might be real on the forum just to be a contrarian.. Eventually, more people moved to possibly real. Still, nobody knows but I lean slightly REAL based on other explosive information. Sketch A vs B,,, Sketch B is the most accurate, no question, I have an undisclosed Cooper image and it is close to B.. Granted B is still a composite sketch but it is more accurate than A. The FBI agrees. I can't share my evidence, if I did everyone would agree on sketch B. Don't ask. also, witnesses liked Murphy (with the glasses and hat, not without), matches sketch B very very well. Sketch A not as well. Extremely unlikely Cooper’s container was an NB6. Cossey described it as a modified NB6, 28’ round canopy. The packing card found says Pioneer, Steinthal canopy 24’ conical. So, Cossey’s description is way off. Cossey was contacted and given the description of the tan chute left in the plane so he got that one right. A round is not a conical., they are different. A 28’ can fit in a modified NB6 but the card says it was a 24’, a NB6 is a 26’ container,, would a smaller chute be put into a larger container, don't think so. Cossey isn't even close to the packing card description. Both of Hayden's chutes were Pioneer containers,, Cossey only ever referred to the one left in the plane as a Pioneer. What likely happened,, Cossey was contacted and asked for chutes he agreed for all 4 to be obtained from Issaquah. Emrich was getting the 4 chutes but was contacted to only get the front chest chutes as the two backs were obtained from Hayden. Emrich sent the two front chest reserves. But Cossey still believed that his back chutes were sent and used.. Cossey was contacted (he claimed the night of the hijacking) and was given the description of the back chute left behind. He then gave his description of the missing chute he believed was his NB6. It wasn’t, we know it was Hayden's. Cossey must have learned of his error soon after but never corrected the record and never supplied his packing records. So, Cossey’s description of the chute Cooper used is completely wrong and unreliable. None of it can be used. It may not even be an all white canopy. Hayden believed his chutes were the same/similar other than colour, this makes sense for a set of bailout rigs. You aren’t going to use different rigs and one modified. His tan chute left in the plane was an early 1940’s Pioneer P2-B-24.. these were mostly civilian and sometimes military use. There were similar era military versions in olive drab, that is likely what Cooper used, not a Korea era NB6. It is even possible Cooper’s chute was found but rejected due to Cossey’s misrepresentation. Finally, the DNA as I suspected is virtually dead,, especially if the tie was not Cooper’s before the hijacking. So, how do we put a suspect on the plane. Fingerprints, but If Cooper obscured his prints that may also be dead. I am working on one last Hail Mary to forensically put a suspect on the plane, after that it will be a circumstantial case. Not ideal but that may be all we have left.

I believe it has nothing to do with with Cooper.. he didn't care about prints.. but if you can find something that links the magazine to Cooper go for it,, I tried years ago but couldn't... I have a theory that includes a torn magazine.. but I rejected it.

I don't remember all the details but the magazine was not linked to Cooper.. An agent wrote NO in the margin on one file, Tina said in Tosaw's book he never had a magazine,, and in one file it says there was no connection to Cooper, it was from another seat area. There might be more in the files but I'd have to go looking but IMO it is a dead issue.. I looked at this a long time ago, I had a theory and was looking for a link to that torn magazine.. not there. The palm print they used was from the seat arm.. There was never any magazine connection to Cooper established,, The prints are confusing. lots of conflicting numbers in the files.. having an FBI agent test the magazine prints to Duane in 1997 doesn't mean anything. Maybe he chose the wrong prints to compare..

I was referring to the quote posted... ,,, you just can't stand being challenged. Personal attack deleted

The difference is we have contradictory evidence.. Why is this so difficult for you. I asked for contradictory evidence/argument for the matchbook and you failed several times.. Now, that doesn't mean it wasn't an error but you can't claim it was with no evidence or argument.

Magazine not linked to Cooper, the palm print was from the seat arm.. Nobody claimed to see Cooper write with a felt pen, they saw the note that was already written with a felt pen.

Olemiss, you fail to recognize the trap you have put yourself in.. now I can add another FAILed argument. You misrepresent my position and attack it. You want to win an argument so badly that you have abandoned logic and reason.. take a deep breath. I said it is possible it is an error but there is no evidence or argument to support that. There are errors in the files and we know it because we have evidence and arguments to identify them.. that is not the case with the matchbook. You want it accepted that it is an error with no evidence or argument... you tried many arguments and failed. The pieces that need to be explained.. The FBI stated the matchbook had writing in it. Cooper took all evidence that had writing on it. His and dictated. Cooper retrieved the empty matchbook,, why?? Cooper left many other things behind..

Palm print was from the seating area.. they don't know if it was Cooper. Cooper's note was written in felt pen they found a part of a magazine that had felt pen writing and wanted to ask witnesses about it. It wasn't. Witnesses are not claiming to have seen him actively write, they are referring to the initial note.. pre-written by Cooper in felt pen. Doesn't mean he didn't write.. that file just does not confirm it.

This is false, it doesn't claim it went to the cockpit. "Insinuation" is your own bias. And Tina doesn't refute it... You have made this same argument before and it is bogus. You claim that if we don't have positive confirmation then it didn't happen,, logic 101.. absence of evidence isn't evidence. You tried the cockpit argument.. FAIL You tried the envelope argument.. FAIL You tried the writing wasn't Cooper's argument.. FAIL You tried the absence of evidence argument... FAIL You tried misstating my position.. FAIL All you have is an opinion that the FBI file is an error with NO reasonable argument to back it up... I think you are just trying to justify your own belief without any rational argument. As I said, it is possible it is an error but you have no argument to support it.

Yes,, Olemiss takes the position that it is an error.. that is possible but Olemiss doesn't have a legit argument for his assertion. So, without a reasonable argument or evidence to refute it we should accept it as likely true... like most things in this case the caveat being it may be an error.

There could have been writing in the matchbook after Cooper had retrieved it.. The second image ended up being a false lead.. The last image refers to Tina dictating his demands..

He asked for all notes back with all writing.. that is clear in the files. That included the demands he dictated to Tina..