olemisscub

That makes sense, especially given the patch sewn on it. "SSS # 5 COSS" So maybe he had several numbered student reserves. That also checks out with the dummy chute being grabbed inadvertently. Emrich is asked to provide chest reserves and he goes to where the cheapest stuff is: the training chutes, some functional, others apparently not. We have Emrich on record saying he figured he'd never see them again so he just grabbed the cheapest things laying around.

I've got that in my analogy: "when one was found it had two car registrations in the glove box from the same date as the original sale." And that's not the ONLY way. C'mon. That's like Ulis saying the ONLY way the money got to Tena Bar was from Cooper landing there, so we should change the entire flight path. Just because you or I fail to come up with an alternate solution doesn't mean there aren't any. In my analogy, Cossey is a car salesman. What do car salesman do? They sell cars. What do riggers do? They rig parachutes. It's unlikely those were the only two parachutes he packed on May 21st (which was a Friday fwiw). Cossey could have been filling out multiple cards at the same time and inadvertently folded one within the other and put both inside the museum chute. 10 minutes later and he's staring at this reserve he's packing and wondering where the card went. "Am I imagining things? Didn't I just write a card for this rig?" That sort of stuff. It's an unlikely scenario but it's still a possibility. Now don't go getting all upset with me for offering an alternate scenario. I STILL consider it a high probability that the card came from Cooper's rig.

Edwards seems unaware that the copycat hijackings also produced pressure bumps when the hijackers jumped.

You're continuing to ignore the fact that we DO NOT know the provenance of that card. It's provenance would have to be established with certainty before it would be admitted in court as evidence. An assumption isn't enough. All of this is predicated on that card being from Cooper's rig. None of us know if it is or isn't. If a car store sold two cars to a person on the same date, and then both of those cars were stolen, and when one was found it had two car registrations in the glove box from the same date as the original sale, then sure, we could assume that the second car registration was from the still missing car, but it's not a guarantee. And it's especially not a guarantee if it differs from the memory of both the owner and the car salesman. I'm exercising caution here.

So what corroboration do we have that Hayden's description is correct? His statement contradicts with the packing card too. Is it worthless as well? And Cossey's claim is only "contradicted by Hayden" due to container color. Forgive me for not putting much weight into someone's verbiage for a particular shade of green. My only bias is for the case evidence. I'm sticking to case evidence that has not yet been proven false. Case files say NB-6. Until shown otherwise, I'm sticking to it. You're overturning evidence from the case based on incomplete information because you DO NOT KNOW if that packing card came from Cooper's rig. It's an educated guess.

Because it's in the literal case evidence from 1971 and there is no other evidence of it being anything else. There is no evidence of Cossey lying about the parachutes until 1976 in a media story. Flyjack is having to literally INVENT an undocumented interview to establish Cossey as being a liar in 1971. It didn't happen. No evidence for it. It's an invention.

I received several super high resolution photographs of the aircraft at Reno from the University of Nevada-Reno. This one shows the "damage" done to the stairs in really good clarity.

My dude, I'm not the one INVENTING scenarios that require us to dismiss plain English readings of the case evidence (we haven't been able to contact Cossey all night = well, they must have talked to him but nobody ever told the boss) and then proclaiming them to be truthful because "no one else has an explanation, so mine is the ultimate truth". You're confusing EVERYONE to hell and back with this four dimensional calculus equation that you've worked out that you think can explain away a couple of discrepancies. How about this: There is NO ERROR in Hayden OR Cossey's description because we don't know the provenance of that second packing card. Just because it lacks an explanation doesn't require it to have come from the Cooper rig. I've not found ONE INSTANCE of Cossey being inconsistent with the FBI until he starts saying dumb shit to Larry. In his FIRST INTERVIEW (read: documented/non-imaginary) with the FBI, he says it was an NB-6 that he put a 28 foot canopy in that he constructed for Norman Hayden. Hayden tells the FBI it was a military type parachute with a 28 foot canopy. He didn't give a specific designation for the Museum Chute so why should we expect him to state that it was an NB-6 or B-4 or P-2? Then, Tosaw comes along in 1983 and asks for a replica. Cossey gives him a 28 footer in a NB-6....but that of course, according to you, is Cossey continuing to maintain this lie he constructed on the 26th of November because of...reasons. All of us on this page who've tried to follow your theory should earn a PhD from our efforts. It requires cherry picking, rationalizing, ignoring, obfuscating, and an 8 page flow chart. Your whole thought process is that Cossey was mistaken and described his own backpacks during some as yet undocumented (read: imaginary) interview and then when he gave his ACTUAL documented interview a day later he decided to lie and keep the erroneous description he already provided them (again, undocumented), yet despite that lie he DID decide to tell the truth this time about their provenance. So Cossey lives this supposed lie with the FBI and media for decades but then 30+ years later during an obviously bullshitted tall tale, you've cherry picked something from that bullshit tall tale that has literally no other corroboration within the case evidence (Cossey receiving a call on the night of the hijacking) and are retroactively injecting that into the case evidence from 1971. You may have saddled us with a PhD but you get a gold medal for the mental gymnastics it has taken to get you to that place. This isn't complicated, people. There IS indeed a discrepancy between what Hayden AND Cossey said and what is written on this packing card that we think MAY have come from Cooper's rig, but we don't have to reinvent the wheel because of this discrepancy. I'll stick with Cossey AND Hayden telling truthful stories and giving truthful descriptions of NORMAN HAYDEN'S rigs in 1971 as they appear in the FBI files. I'll then continue to ignore the VERIFIED bullshit that Cossey started saying in 2003. If I'm ever proven wrong on this then I'll actually admit it, which I doubt you ever would. But as far as I'll continue to be concerned, it was an NB-6 because Cossey said two days after the hijacking that it was an NB-6 he packed for Norman Hayden and because he packed an NB-6 for Richard Tosaw. Absent any ACTUAL evidence to the contrary, I'll go with it being an NB-6, because the case evidence never says it was ANYTHING other than an NB-6. Period.

stop. We've got Hayden on multiple occasions talking about how the pioneer is the one he wore because he liked the harness to it better than the harness that was on the OD one.

If you got a pair of bailout rigs to meet regs, you would get two similar, not completely different. Fist, if you got them just to meet regs, you wouldn't care what you are given. Second, how are they completely different? You need to explain this. You're acting like we're talking about the difference in a car and a truck. We're not. They are both 4 pin pull containers. Olive Drab and Sage Green are not the same.. In 1971 a nylon NB6 was maybe 15 years old, it would not have faded.. it would not be mistaken for a much older faded Olive Drab. Before you got into the case you didn't have a military parachute.. you make a huge assumption that Hayden didn't know what Olive Drab was.. not valid. I'm assuming Hayden doesn't know what "SAGE GREEN" is and you're assuming that he did. My assumptions is much safer. Olive drab was a ubiquitous term for "military green". So whether it's a slightly lighter shade or a darker green doesn't matter. A lay person would just call it "olive drab" regardless. You're splitting hairs on the color thing to argue your point. Today, an NB6 might be 60 years old, then maybe 15. And apparently they weren't in vogue for skydivers buying conversions. B-4's were much preferred. You want it both ways, cherry picking parts from Hayden's description and from Cossey's... I don't see any way that Cossey's description differs from Hayden's aside from color. And like I said, I will NEVER concede to your argument that Hayden had to know the difference in "sage green" and "olive drab".You're acting like "sage green" is part of everyone's common verbiage. It's not. Not even remotely close. But "olive drab" IS part of common verbiage for "military green". I'd have been surprised if he actually described the container as sage green if it was in fact sage green.

Hardly speculation. It's quite obvious. There is not a more obvious conflation in the FBI Files. It's a verbatim conflation.

Hayden's original description doesn't say tan cloth harness. That's a clear later conflation. I think you know that. "An NB6 is nothing like his Pioneer" Holy hyperbole! 40+ years later in someone's memory, an NB-6 and that P-2 would absolutely be considered "similar" aside from their color. They're both boring military bailout rigs with similar features on the containers. If they were literally the same model aside from color, like if he had essentially received a set, I think Hayden would have said that. Additionally, you're very hung up on this Sage Green/Olive Drab thing. Before I got into the specific nomenclature of this case, I wouldn't have known there was a "military" type color called "sage green." Everything "green" in the military is just called "olive drab" colloquially. "Go get your OD's on, men." Hayden using the term "olive drab" to describe something that was potentially "sage green" is a total nothingburger. I'm sure most of the lurkers reading this would agree with me on that.

Getting rid of Cossey doesn't negate the possibility of Hayden's chute being an NB-6. He had a surplus military parachute. Most likely was an NB-6 or B-4. Hayden doesn't call the Pioneer a military chute, but he does call the Cooper chute a military type parachute. So that tells me that he thought of them differently, which means they likely looked different. I know you disagree, but at this point if we disregard Cossey completely, there is no higher a likelihood that it was some old WWII chute than a B-4 or NB-6. And of course the packing card carries more weight over Hayden. It even carried more weight for me when it was Hayden and Cossey against the packing card, which is a written record. I'm just not sold on your reasoning for WHY there is a discrepancy between 28 and 24.

Hayden sure seemed awfully concerned about them once they were gone. He shows up in the FBI files several times between 71 and 74 asking for his Pioneer back and talking about how its harness was really comfortable for him. So he did wear them inside his plane.

If Cossey is unreliable, then we shouldn’t take anything he says at any point EVER with a bit of credulity. Strike him from the record completely and what are we left with? Norman Hayden’s first description. So now you have to reconcile why Hayden thought it was a 28 footer. I know what size canopy are in my parachutes that I own. Why wouldn’t he?

Meh, we both know that the media, and the FBI themselves on occasion, get mixed up with the packed/owned/supplied verbiage. And it's not really worth nothing that the dummy is appearing in that first round of publications on the 26th given that we have that document where the AP person calls to fact check about the dummy chute after speaking to Cossey on the 25th. The FBI's response to that query and their sudden urgency to speak to Cossey after learning of it makes me think the FBI didn't know anything about the dummy chute until that reporter called them.

I think I may have finally figured out my main issue with your premise and why my brain is struggling to follow you on this. Cossey couldn't shut up about this thing back in 71 to the media. As much as he liked to insert himself into the story, don't you think that he'd mention them being his parachutes or, at the very least, tell them about receiving the call that night? I feel like such a thing would have ended up in the paper. In other words, if he was actually called that night, it would have shown up in those early papers. The reporters wouldn't just leave that out of their story, so it's doubtful he told them about it. This makes me think it never happened. Him receiving a call from the FBI that night isn't documented anywhere in the FBI files (I ask why?) and Cossey doesn't mention it until 2003 (again, I ask why?). Why isn't he mentioned anywhere in this sequence?

So he's able to describe HIS dummy chute in detail....without knowing he's describing HIS dummy chute? How does that work exactly?

Cool. What about the Oregonian morning edition?

He has eyeballs. If the person describing the rig knew it was a dummy, they'd have described it as such. The FBI doesn't learn that one was a dummy until a reporter tells them that Cossey told him that. So Cossey fully describes his fronts in this mystery statement, but DOESN'T provide the detail that it was a dummy, but then DOES tell a reporter that it's a dummy?

OK, so to believe this, all of us have to believe that 1) Cossey gave a description BEFORE they wrote that they tried calling him all night. 2) That his description did NOT include the fact that one was a dummy. So Cossey gives this undocumented description, doesn't describe it as a dummy, then two days later decides it's time to describe it being a dummy. Got it.

Nope. Wrongo,, it is NOT a critical piece of evidence. It isn't needed at all actually. As vigorous as you've been arguing about it, then it sure seems like you cared about it as evidence. Emrich didn't even know he sent Cossey's dummy chute. No proof that chest chute description came from him. 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. Cossey claimed he was contacted well before that in the evening. Unconfirmed of course.. so it is still plausible. 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. 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 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. It is, in fact absurd that he wasn't contacted before the in person interview.. how does he arrange the in person interview. 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? 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.. Maybe Andy Anderson was D.B. Cooper? Maybe Tina and Anderson were lovers? You have no idea what happened. These documents do not prove what you claim they do... PERIOD. Well they for DAMN SURE do not prove what you are claiming they do. You get lots of things wrong But you don't, clearly. You have no other better explanation that fits.. Go ahead make one up... 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." You present NO explanation.. Again, I don't have to present an explanation to have an opinion about YOUR explanation. but try to trash mine with irrelevancies and bogus claims. You've been presenting as evidence for days: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

It’s not irrelevant. Not even a little. You’re using it to support your argument that Cossey gave some earlier undocumented statement describing his own parachute before his Nov 26th statement. You need for this alleged undocumented statement to come BEFORE he told the papers that the chute came from Hayden on the 25th. If Cossey’s first statement to the FBI actually came AFTER when he talked to the media guys, then your explanation can’t work. So to bolster this claim, you’re using as evidence the fact that we have a very early chute description. This is why you are insisting that it has to come from Cossey. If it is shown to come from another person then your argument is weakened. And that’s really the sole reason that I disagree with your explanation. I truly think that what we see in the evidence is correct: Cossey’s first statement was on Nov 26th. And why would I care if it wasn’t? I want this story told right, I don’t care WHO is right. This isn’t a contest for me. If you showed me evidence that would convince me of something, then I’d believe it. And it’s nothing against you. You’ve had other theories that have convinced me, but this is like a peer review process. I can follow you on some of your other theories but not on this one because I’m finding myself able to poke holes in it. So it’s not irrelevant that those chest descriptions didn’t come from Cossey. It’s disproving a critical piece of evidence that you’ve presented to support your claim. Your other piece of evidence I can also attack. For everyone out there, remember, Fly is arguing that we have evidence of an undocumented Cossey statement because of the front pack descriptions (which I've now shown couldn't have come from Cossey), but he's also using as evidence of an undocumented statement the appearance of "flat circular" appearing in a Nov 25th 302. You’re suggesting only Cossey could make such a statement. I feel pretty strongly I can make that less likely as well. We've got this statement where the FBI is saying they tried all day of the 25th to talk to Cossey up until they quit trying at 3:30 and that now, on the morning of the 26th, they are assigning a lead to special agents to contact Cossey. Ok, so when is the first time "flat circular" shows up in the FBI Files? Well, it's on a document that was written and then first sent out at 4:25 pm on the 25th. So if we go by the standard English language reading of these documents then that means that this undocumented mystery statement took place between 3:30 pm and 4:25 pm when this document was first sent. And also for this to be evidence of your argument means that we have to believe that the ONLY thing they added to Hayden's description after Cossey's undocumented statement was "flat circular military type." Because that's the only difference in this and Hayden's description. In addition to this undocumented statement having to occur in this narrow window and for it to have been such a low value statement that it only merited adding "flat circular" to Hayden's description, we're also having to believe that the FBI were so intent on getting a statement from Cossey that they assigned two special agents to track him down DESPITE having already talked to him and just not documenting it for some reason. I'm just not convinced that there is ANY evidence whatsoever to make an implication that Cossey 1) spoke to the FBI before he made his "these were Hayden's chutes" statements on the Nov 25th, and 2) that he ever believed that his personal backpacks were on that plane. Believe what you want, that's fine, but to me this just means that there is another explanation for the discrepancy between Cossey/Hayden and what the packing card says. Hell, Cossey's NB-6 statement could indeed be completely full of shit for all I know, but I don't believe it's for the reason that you are saying because I see nothing anywhere that makes me think Cossey ever gave a statement to the FBI at a time when he thought these were his parachutes he was describing.

Oh? First front chute description shows up in a fully written six page document that is sent to the Director at 5:10 AM then Portland at 5:57 AM on Nov 25th. Please don’t try to spin this with more “well we don’t if someone did or didn’t talk to him before”. Just concede this point and move on. This description of the front chutes didn’t come from Cossey.

Emrich. He’s the one who actually grabbed the front chutes. And we know the FBI were speaking to him in the early AM of the 25th.