FLYJACK

I am sure I have seen packing cards for military chutes,, maybe they used both cards and logs.. It might narrow down Cooper's parachute exposure.. example,, Air Force Logs makes sense for paratroopers..

Is that universal to all military chutes.. Don't they have info in the chute, in the pocket that says "inspection and packing data".

Wouldn't a log book be in the same pocket... So, it doesn't really matter if it was a card or a log that he pulled. The chute returned to Hayden is an early 1940's P-2-B24... originally a silk 24' chute.

I know, but maybe the description was second hand.. Hayden talked to Halstad who conveyed the info to the FBI. Typical for the Vortex.

Here Cossey claimed the back chutes had the same descent rate.,, We don't trust Cossey's details but it makes sense that descent rates can be rigged for a given weight, making size less relevant.

He was referring to the initial description in the FBI files.. Bruce showed him and he said he didn't talk to them and didn't agree with the description in the files. The 1957 packing card went to Hayden.. I assume the museum has it with the chute. The 1960 packing card must still be with the FBI.. I FOIA'd for the packing cards and any info but got the canned response that anything will be in the FBI vault.

I was the one that figured the packing cards out and posted it all here a while back... you probably didn't see it. So, I agree, Cooper checked both cards and put them back in the pocket of the 26' 1957 and used the newer 24'... You are correct he had some chute knowledge but not an expert.. He probably had some parachute training in the military... I also believe he tossed the dummy because it appeared tampered with, had no seal or card... he didn't take it with him. FWW,, Cossey claimed the two back chutes (28' and 26') had the same descent rate... I know he is unreliable.

The odd thing is Hayden claimed he never talked to the FBI...

I agree, there was a lot of debate in the past in the Vortex about the 24' being accurate... or a typo.. or that a 24' emerg backchute existed.. It is accurate,, IMO.. The FBI was looking for the wrong chute... based on Cossey's description.

There is controversy about the size of the chute Cooper used,, the one left behind and given to Hayden was a 26' and Cossey claimed the other was a 28',, but the packing card said 24'.. some people said they don't exist in a back only fronts are 24'.. Cossey is unreliable.. So, I looked for and found a Pioneer 24' emergency back chute... they do exist..

Some rare wind data,, From notebook,,, Portland Ground wind at 8PM - 270 deg but at 8:30PM - 180 deg,, confirming wind was shifting

I researched this and some people actually have shallow ridges leaving no prints or very tough to detect,, other ways to temporarily hide prints are chemicals, abrasion or adhesives... It seems Cooper was not concerned with leaving prints.. and no good ones were found.

Another possibility is that Cooper dropped money in a stew's purse.. after refusal,, Remember, Alice went to the back to get her purse.. were all the stew's purses stored in the back near Cooper... But, it would be discovered later and then it would be harder to explain to the FBI.

Maybe,, for whatever reason I just don't accept the fingerprint excuse.. because there were so many other overlooked potential sources for prints.

Smudged prints.. he may have modified his fingertips..

Not really, my father wrote notes on matchbooks all the time. It is always possible it was an error in the FBI notes but then that can applied to virtually everything in the case.. If it wasn't for notes and he left other potential prints why would he want to retrieve an empty matchbook.

It never made sense to me, the argument that he took the matchbook because it had his prints.. He left other items and "offering" the money that had potential prints.. It wasn't about the prints, he didn't care about them.. probably because he had obscured them.

We agree I also think he obfuscated his prints.. In the FBI files..

Like TBAR, we will never know for sure.. just a bunch of theories to argue about.

Most of the other letters are. Those three letters stand out from the rest as possible,, They don't seem like randos.. two of them had an agenda. Why would some rando want to convince that Cooper was dead and a really good guy?? Sounds more like Cooper or an associate trying rehab his character and end the search... and I don't think he was dead.

This is not true, Cooper did leave evidence behind. Cigs, tie, drinking glass, magazines, the open chute, the packing cards he handled, and the money the stews "refused" could have had his prints.. doesn't sound studious. The notes he took had hijacking comms writing on them,, the matchbook had notes written on it. He took it because of the notes not prints.. he didn't care about prints, maybe he had obscured his fingertips.. I don't see that an argument either way..

The problem with your analysis.. The letter's aren't necessarily factual.. "Bedridden" was Sept 72,,, and "Bahamas" was March 72.. Neither is necessarily true. IMO, the Sept 72 is an attempt to convince that Cooper had died,, he hadn't. (Clara did the same 10 years later)

It is a boast.. doesn't mean it can't be Cooper. I think it was an initial contact for a shake down. The 4 codes in the letter for each news media were meant for a follow up to confirm the ID of the writer.. but there was never any follow up. The writer bailed on his plan, just like the person who contacted Gunther wanted money but just dropped out. The follow up would probably have been a money for info scheme. I did find a solution to one of the codes, it may be a coincidence but it would have to be 1 in over 100000 odds.. The unredacted letter I posted, the coded letter(s) and this one are the ones I consider possibly from Cooper and worth examination.

If in a week or two later there was a missing bundle from the ransom, everyone would be looking for an explanation. The crew would be under initial scrutiny.. if they placed that article or not. It was the only way they could make a public statement... and get in front of it. If they knew a bundle was missing and was about to be exposed from their perspective it makes sense to make that slightly altered narrative public. Judging whether it was the right move is another issue. This isn't proof, it is just very suspicious and outside the norm for Tina and it supports the broader TBAR theory. You can nit-pic and rationalize away virtually everything in this case because there are actually very few provable facts, that is why this is such a tough case... We need to accept some things as possibly true to vet them until proven false. Doesn't mean you believe it but it is part of the inquiry process... when you automatically reject things that are possible but unproven then there is no advancement.

I disagree, that article and timing of it is a significant piece,, it is completely out of character,, Tina never divulged any case evidence and didn't discuss the case for decades.. It is such a rare piece of info that it stands out. They even twisted the facts to make her look better... Cooper didn't offer her money, she asked for it.. it came from her or the people around her and it was intentional. The info about her taking the money was not public, why was it revealed. Bucks County pop was 434,000 in 1972.. Clearly, if we knew exactly how it got in the paper and why that timing it would make a difference.