FLYJACK

My theory for the dummy chute is that is was suspicious, it was not full and had no riggers seal.. So, Cooper tossed it.

Robert99 has said in the past that the museum chute is NOT an NB-6.. He believes by "appearance" that it is stuffed with a 28' canopy. However, the container is a P2-24', not a 26' and with a 26' canopy it looks stuffed. It seems unlikely that a 24' container would have a 28' chute.

Ground told crew chutes coming from McChord..

"appears" It is a 24' early 40's P2 container.. so a 26' canopy in a 24' looks more stuffed.. I don't know if a 28' canopy can even fit in a 24' container.

Cossey filled out the card with 26', it was repacked twice after Hayden got it back and never changed, the container is a 24'... can you even stuff a 28' in a 24' container.. Hayden just wanted minimum chutes to meet regulations.. he was never going to use them. There is no evidence that is anything other than a 26' canopy.

Repeat from file #64.. I still find it amusing the FBI couldn't read the packing card properly.. 226 is not the type, it is the serial number.

Interesting info.. I always thought Cooper was vulnerable with only a bomb.. and might have had a concealed weapon. If people didn't think the bomb was real he needed a backup.. even if just for confidence. Imagine if somebody said hey that bomb is fake.. he'd be done.

The Hayden description file was dated the 25th... Another description disseminated on the 25th added a tan harness and flat circular chute to that description of the missing chute. It also included a description of the front chute.

Both back chutes were later described as having the same tan cotton harness,, with the exception of Cossey's description.. Why would one be called "civilian luxury type" and the other "military" if they had the same harness.

You can't disagree with something that is unknown. Do you think Hayden used the term "civilian luxury chute"? when he denied and rejected it and said they were both military and "identical". The front chute description was before they talked to Cossey on the 25th.. that came from somewhere, either Cossey was contacted by somebody earlier OR somebody who handled the chutes before they went on the plane described them. For the backs, that description by Hayden is either in full or in part from somebody else. Either somebody who handled the chutes or a call to Cossey or a mix of both. I do lean towards those descriptions being from somebody who handled the chutes before they went on the plane.. it makes sense that somebody documented the descriptions.. but it is possible somebody talked to Cossey on the phone earlier than 3:30 PM on the 25th,, we don't know. because that "museum" chute has no labelling and could be mistaken for a "civilian chute" vs a military chute with a label. Neither Hayden nor Cossey would have INCORRECTLY called it a "civilian luxury chute" but somebody who handled it before it went on the plane could have. They would have also noted the fray and the burp sacks. What does that mean.. the initial descriptions would be attributed falsely or at least partially to Hayden. Hayden also said he never looked at the canopy, he wouldn't even know it was white. The attribution of "flat circular" on the 25th to Hayden's description is odd.. if is was from Cossey they would have added the colour and the front chutes to the doc.. that suggests they had mixed up several descriptions..

So, you are speculating.. which is necessary given the gaps in knowledge.. But, it still doesn't make sense. If they got in touch with Cossey by phone after 3:30PM on the 24th and he gave them chute descriptions,, why would they add only "flat circular" to Hayden's description, nothing else and not the front chutes. He knew one was a dummy at this time. Nope. Something else happened.

DUDE, you are creating a strawman... the context was the description attributed to him which he disagreed... He also cited an interaction with the FBI, so he clearly was not saying he never talked to the FBI.. HE WAS REFERRING TO THAT DESCRIPTION. That was the context. It isn't just the early contact with the FBI, Hayden disagreed with the description,,, "civilian luxury chute" is false and Hayden said they were both military.. That chute has no military label, so somebody added that subjective description from a visual inspection .. and it didn't come from Hayden. It was probably added by somebody who examined the chutes before they went on the plane. If that was added and not from Hayden that puts into question the entire description. I don't know exactly what happened but I know the simple scenario you believe in doesn't make sense. The 302's are littered with errors and conflicts. The chute descriptions are all mixed up. The 302's are not conclusions they are investigative notes. That Hayden chute description is a summary, not a primary interview. Even if they did talk to Hayden, it still doesn't make sense.

I doubt that is Emerick... they would have mentioned the chutes. Linn unknowingly grabbed a dummy chute, that description is for the missing chute. Makes no sense. and the entire lengthy 5:10 AM doc was issued in 10 minutes.. nope. Nice try though. My guess is, it was somebody who handled the chutes right before they went on the plane. Somebody viewed the chutes and wrote down a description. and the Hayden description may have been the same source in whole or part (conflated),, that is why it has "civilian luxury" and burp sacks, frayed, etc.. and Hayden disagreed with the description attributed to him. I am not sure exactly what happened but it is not as clear as you guys think,,

Who supplied this description.. prior to 5:10AM Nov 25th

This is the attitude that maintained the status quo in this case for decades... Fortunately for this case, you aren't the arbiter of realty.. You can't take things on "face value" when there is contradictory evidence. Ironically, I took the cigarette stains on the fingers on face value BECAUSE there was NO contradictory evidence and about 5 mentions of it. Here, we have contradictory evidence and testimony... I am consistent, others are not...

No, it still doesn't make sense. "Hayden described" could be through a third party.. it doesn't necessarily mean the agent got the info from Hayden directly.. it could still be misattributed. The problem is that file is a summary, not a transcript. Hayden said he didn't agree with the chute descriptions, the "civilian luxury chute" for chute #1 and that he thought chute #2 was "identical".. and that both were "military".. He essentially denied those descriptions came from him, but agreed chute #1 basically matches. "Civilian luxury chute" suggests somebody is paraphrasing.. Hayden also said he didn't talk directly to FBI agents referring to those descriptions. Hayden is confirmed to have talked to Harrison and Halstad. Chute #2 , 28' size doesn't match the card for the missing chute. Cossey said he was CALLED and asked about the chute Cooper used after the plane landed in Reno. That isn't confirmed in the FBI docs,, who was his initial contact? Were several people trying to contact Cossey? On the 26th Cossey was interviewed in person by the FBI. He must have been contacted before that by phone. When? The FBI was trying to track down Cossey on the 25th... unable to up to at least 3:30. This is where it gets really weird,, A document dated the 25th attributes and ADDS "flat circular" to the initial description of #2 chute.. Where did that come from? It does not match the packing card for the missing chute but does match Cossey's description.. it wasn't in the "Hayden" description. A flat circular is specific and different from a conical, Hayden didn't know parachutes, it was a conical on both cards not a flat circular.. Who added it before Cossey's interview on the 26th. Something just does not add up... Weighing an FBI summary over a witness and conflicting descriptions just doesn't work for me.. Many FBI summaries have errors or are misleading. Something else happened here...

Cossey's formal FBI interview in person on the 26th.. Packing the chutes for Hayden is mentioned... though not attributed to Cossey directly, could have been added by agent. Cossey must have had telephone contact with the FBI before this in person interview..

Not so fast. I am not finished. It still doesn't make sense. You give up too early.. When something doesn't make sense to me, I keep going until it is resolved. Hayden's so called description dated the 25th includes "flat circular" the packing card for the missing chute is a conical,, these are completely different. So, we have both the 28' and type that doesn't match.. This is dated the 25th.. At 2:00 AM Harrison was contacted.. At 2:50 AM it could have been Halstad that was contacted.. That description could have come from or through Haltsad.. Barry Halstad and Norman Hayden have the same number of letters. and somehow "flat circular" got added for the 25th FBI page above. FWW, Cossey claims he got a call after the jet landed in Reno... not two days later.

"burp sack" was a pilot/plane thing not a parachute thing.. putting them in the folds of a chute was just a handy place to have them available. The chutes were emergency bailout rigs for pilots not regular jumper rigs.. Of course both Hayden and Cossey were pilots.

Yes, "cards" and the descriptions are conflated throughout the files. It is easier to catch on a computer with OCR... back then you would have to read all the paper files to catch it. How many agents studied all the files. These FBI files are not conclusions but investigative notes.. probably lots of communication and bureaucratic errors... Sure, they relied on Cossey as the expert,, he packed the chutes, he should have the best knowledge... but Cossey made an incorrect assumption and never corrected it. They should have better documented the chutes and cards right before they went on the plane.. with pictures. Maybe Cooper's chute was found.

As I said, the bottom line is Cossey's description is completely incompatible with the packing card found.. Cossey initially believed all four including his back chutes were about to be taken from Issaquah but Hayden's back chutes were secured and Emrich was informed to only send the two fronts. Cossey still believed his back chutes were used when asked for a description of the missing one he described his chute from Issaquah, not Hayden's. Cossey would have figured out his error but never corrected it. He never gave the FBI his packing records for the Hayden chutes. He even lied and said he gave them all his records.. I can only speculate on Hayden's description,, some of the descriptions appear blended.. but the facts are clear that Cossey's description is incompatible with the card.. What does this mean. The FBI were looking for the wrong chute for over 50 years and rejected some that may have been Cooper's. The FBI trusted Cossey but he was initially mistaken then maintained his error.. Cooper's chute was.. A Pioneer with a 24' ripstop conical Steinthal, July/1960, S/N 60-9707.. likely a similar vintage to Hayden's other chute and NOT an NB6 or modified NB8 container. Likely olive drab green container and cotton tan harness. Canopy may or may not be all white. The FBI had Cooper's chute info but never figured it out.

You are confused. My argument is that Cossey was describing his chute he thought was taken from Issaquah, not Hayden's.. I already said that the size is the only discrepancy for the initial description. Cossey's documented descriptions are completely incompatible with the card.. You seem to still claim Cossey was describing Hayden's chute from memory.. No way. He was describing his own.

That could have come from somebody who saw the chute before it went on the plane. It doesn't make any difference... even if it came from Hayden.. Cossey's description is completely incompatible.

Look, you have this so screwed up.. Cossey claimed it was a modified NB6, calling it an NB8 at times with a 28' chute.. You want to explain how a 24' chute gets into a modified NB6/8.. Cossey is a documented liar... the only NB6/8 source is Cossey. But there are other problems.. the container colour, the harness colour, the chute type (conical on card vs flat circular by Cossey) these are not the same Steinthal, on the card not mentioned by Cossey the size, 24' on card container type NB6 (26' not 24') Cossey claimed he modified it to an NB8 for a 28' and it is also a Pioneer, not mentioned by Cossey in files. The chute left in the plane was referred to as the Pioneer. An NB6 can be a Pioneer but it is telling that it is never mentioned in the files. If it was a "Pioneer NB6", Cossey would have said so. He only called it an NB6 or NB8..

They are barf bags,, a pilot would have them. These are emergency bailout rigs for PILOTS. Barf bags are stuffed in the chute for quick access. Cossey was also a PILOT.