olemisscub

Speculation is fine when we are absent case evidence, but we’re not absent case evidence on this issue with Cossey talking to the FBI or thinking that it was HIS chute. It’s quite obvious from reading the plain English that Farrell is bitching about how they can’t get a hold of Cossey but the media can. If they had spoken to Cossey they’d have mentioned it and would have used the term “re-contact”. Yes, there is an inconsistency with the canopy size between what Hayden AND Cossey believed was in that thing and what that packing card says. You think you have figured it out. That’s fine. But you’ve not convinced me of your explanation for that inconsistency. I’ve changed my opinions on this case MANY times if I’m convinced of something. You yourself have convinced me of things so it’s not some slight toward you. I’m simply not following you here. We clearly disagree. Not worth us continuing to litigate this. And I don’t know enough about the flight path to debate Cunningham about it. But when it has been discussed between us on a show or whatever I will clearly express my view that I think he is moving it too far south. And how often do I talk about Skip? I don’t think he was Cooper but there isn’t a ton to attack him on as far as what I’m looking for with Cooper. His nose doesn’t strike me as what I think Cooper’s nose was, but that’s about it.

Sure, it's weird. But what do you think it is a red flag OF, exactly?

It isn't rank speculation.. it fits the evidence. It's still speculation. You can't provide any actual proof from the case files that Cossey thought he was describing his parachute, so you're speculating. 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.. MORE speculation. This was Charlie Farrell's case. If someone talked to Cossey at any point he'd have been told. Instead, Farrell writes a document bitching about how no one has been in contact with Cossey. Even if you don't want to accept it. You still can't reconcile the descriptions.. you can't do it. I'm not TRYING to reconcile the descriptions, you are the one doing that. I'm MERELY saying that your argument that Cossey is describing HIS parachutes to the FBI a day after he told the media they were Hayden's is bizarre. Especially when his first documented statement to the FBI has the description coming AFTER the story of where they came from. I know you won't budge on this, but everyone else will see this. Hey everyone reading this: this isn't complicated. This is the first time Cossey is documented talking to the FBI. On what planet can anyone read this and think Cossey is describing HIS personal parachute?

This simply isn't complicated. The first time NB-6 enters the lexicon is later in the afternoon on November 26th, a full day AFTER he has told the media that they came from Hayden. You cannot make your case that Cossey thought they were his backpacks and thus gave an erroneous "NB-6 statement" without rank speculation. Actual case documents and media from 1971 do not support your contention. If Cossey had spoken to them at any time, then it would have been documented. As it is, we have multiple documents saying "where the fuck is this guy?" Nothing about "re-contacting Cossey".

That description had to have come from Emrich, whom we know they were able to get in touch with on the 25th. Ok, Fly, for the love of all that is good and holy in the Vortex, you gotta, for once in a Cooper debate, give me the W on this one. This couldn’t be any more clear. The FBI didn’t talk to Cossey until the 26th. They are very obviously pissed that they’ve been unable to speak to him despite the news media being able to

let’s really break this down. That 11-25-71 4:53 PM NITEL description looks like a bad conflation of Hayden’s earlier descriptions. The only phrase missing from this conflated description that wasn’t explicitly in Hayden’s first description is “flat circular.” Everything else is Hayden. “Olive drab”, “civilian luxury type”, etc. All Hayden. Where is “NB-6” or “Sage green” or a description of the dummy chute? This bonkers document is describing the recovered chest pack as being the missing chest pack. I don’t see anything in this document that indicates that it had to come from Cossey. Quite the opposite, actually. Then we have what I believe is Cossey’s ACTUAL first statement to the FBI being reported as 6:22 PM on 11/26/71. This is the first time in the files that we see Cossey’s terms used to describe the backpack like “NB-6”, “non-steerable”, “nylon” “Sage green”, “no d-rings”. If they had spoken to him earlier then at least a few of those terms should be showing up in the descriptions from the 25th. It’s also the first time we learn about the dummy chute. If they had interviewed Cossey earlier, they would have had a clearer picture of the chest packs and would have known about the dummy chute already.

Well but we know that isn't true because on AM of the 25th they were still looking for Cossey for the first time.

The Girolamo 302 was butchered somewhere. Agent took crappy notes or something was lost in transcription. I doubt that Pioneer OR Conical are references to the Cooper chute. Also, "conical type commercial parachute" sounds like someone describing the museum chute. It's not like "commercial parachute" would be written on a packing card anywhere. Girolamo, being military, probably didn't recognize the museum chute as being some old military rig because of its color and also the modern harness.

If the provenance of that additional packing card could not be demonstrated (which is my entire argument), then Cossey's description and Hayden's description (which match) would have heavy evidentiary value as they are both primary sources. My issue with your thesis is that it would have done Cossey no harm to be like "my bad, I thought it was my chute yesterday when we first spoke. Now that I know it's the one I made for Hayden, here is the correct description." Cossey would have had no reason to obfuscate the truth here. Why? Because he was embarrassed over a mistake? Nah. I imagine Cossey, like most people, thought this stuff (and Cooper) would be picked up rather quickly. So it would have served him no purpose to turn a mistake into a 30 year lie that might be exposed at any time.

This is what I’m thinking. Both packing cards seem to have the same data set on them. This makes sense because Cossey was assembling these from scratch, thus they’d have new packing cards. We can see on the museum card that Cossey was indeed using a new card. I think it’s reasonable to think that both cards are the same type of card.

Hayden isn’t irrelevant at all. If you have two different people saying the same thing, then that should at least keep us open to the possibility, though perhaps slim, that the 24 foot card isn’t from Cooper’s chute and has some other weird explanation. And really, Hayden’s description is not only relevant, it may be more relevant than Cossey’s since he had the things in his possession hours earlier. Plus, you can doubt the veracity of Cossey’s claims, but we know for 100% certainty that other information Hayden provided was accurate.

lol, holy smokes. Robert. I OWN three bailout rigs. Two NB-6's and a B-4. I know what packing cards are. I know that each parachute should only have one. I know that each time they are repacked they are filled out by the rigger and certified. I know what they look like. I have a YouTube video showing off a packing card that I have signed by Earl Cossey. Try to keep up :-)

Oy vey, I understand this. We’re talking about what is WRITTEN on the packing card.

And I’ll still be here waiting to see a packing card that has two manufacturers listed on it. I would be far more willing to believe your version if Hayden didn’t also say it was a 28 footer. We know his description of the museum chute is very accurate, so why would his Cooper chute description also be off?

It just really sounds like he’s describing a packing card. Pilot chutes don’t have packing cards, of course. “Also packed by Earl Cossey on 5/21/71” You’ll note that at the end of the document he writes packing cards, plural.

You keep saying “Cossey said” and “Cossey believed” as if they are statements of fact. Where does he say these things? He says these things in an interview from 32 years later where we KNOW he’s lying. So why are you believing it OTHER than your belief that it helps explains an inconsistency?

And there is NOTHING to show that it isn’t! What precludes Cossey from giving Hayden an old NB-6? They were fairly ubiquitous items. NB-6’s and B-4’s were very common. Is it so hard to just say “it could have been an NB-6, I don’t think it was, but there is no way for us to really know at this point.” His sketchiness about the records has nothing to do with it being an NB-6 or not. That wouldn’t go in his records. Canopies are what packing cards and records are for. If Cossey thought they were HIS OWN then why the heck does he tell the media the day after the hijacking that they came from Hayden? Why does he tell the FBI that he made them for Norman Hayden MULTIPLE times in the file? Why do you care so much about an obviously false statement that Cossey made over 30 years later? Your entire argument is resting on a statement that we know to be erroneous.

Yes I saw your post and I still question it. If you can show me a packing card from that era that has TWO manufacturers listed on it, I’d be much more open to the possibility. Packing cards aren’t for the container. They are for the canopy. And yes I know you provided an example of some guy during WWII writing P-2 on a packing card.

Something else that bugs me. This detailed recital of the packing cards isn’t from a 302 interview. Presumably this was written directly from the agent looking at the cards. Why, when describing the 24 foot, does he not use “Pioneer” or “canonical” (two things which DO appear on the museum chute card). I’m thinking there is a possibility that there is some confusion/conflation in the Girolamo 302. That seems to be just as logical or likely (especially knowing that these parachute 302’s are wonky as hell) as believing that a packing card would say Steinthal AND Pioneer on it.

Doesn’t corroborate Hayden’s description either though. Why did Hayden say 28 foot as well? And don’t say it’s a conflation with Cossey’s description. Hayden’s description was written while they were still looking for Cossey. So if Hayden’s first description of the museum chute matches perfectly with what it actually is, why would his description of the Cooper chute be off? As I’ve said, odds are pretty damn high that the 24 foot card is from Cooper’s chute due to the date, but we can’t be 100% sure that something else isn’t at play here. If it was just Cossey saying 28 foot then it would be easier to write off as a faulty memory or a mistake or whatever, but for them both to separately say 28 foot? That at least makes me question that 24 foot packing card’s provenance.

Cossey is the only source for the NB6/8 description, there is no corroboration, only conflicts. What conflict does an NB6 have with anything? What about the 1960 packing card negates it being an NB6? The burden of proof is on the affirmative, not negation. Prove it was an NB6/8, not it wasn't. You have that completely backwards. You are the one making the accusation that it ISN'T what is in the case evidence. That burden is on you. 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. I've explained my Cossey litmus test. I've not discovered him telling a known falsehood until the 1976 article where he talks about the chute left on the plane being a prized possession or some such. Five years into it the case was certainly the "DB Cooper case". In the days after the hijacking, he had no reason to be embellishing anything. And he's consistent as far as I can tell. Cossey's description in the FBI files conflicts with Hayden's. How? Cossey's description conflicts with the missing chute packing card. So does Hayden's Cossey never supplied his packing records, lied to the FBI about it and later claimed he did have the records. This is problematic, certainly. Cossey changes the description form NB6 to NB8,,, why, it wasn't modified. I don't care what Cossey said after 1976. Cossey would have learned of his error within a day or two but never corrected his error. Lied by omission. There is nothing in the case files nor in the early media reports to suggest that he was called on the night of the 24th. You're basing that on his bullshit stories from later years. 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. What file is this? 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. Cossey's later stories are all known bullshit. So why are you relying on them to inform your opinions about the truth? Ignore everything that dude said after 1976 and your head won't be spinning so much. If you ignore everything Cossey said after that 1976 article, then everything checks out between the FBI Files from 1971 and what he told the media in 1971. 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. Why is it unlikely? A matching pair? Why do you think that? They don't come in pairs like a set of cufflinks. C'mon now. Cossey said they were assembled out of crap he had lying around. Why would Cossey have a matching pair of rare WWII parachute packs just laying around? That's not realistic. 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. Hayden says it was a 28 footer way before they got in touch with Cossey. And Hayden doesn't say they were the same. If they were the same, he'd have said so. He seemed to think they were different because he described them differently....so I mean...they weren't the same in his mind. Why use the term "military back pack" to describe the OD one and not also the tan one? NB-6's "look" military. That's why. 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. For one thing, I'm accepting his NB6 claim from 1971, not anything about an NB8 from 2003+. Cossey doesn't call it an NB-8 until 2003. And again, I don't care what Cossey after 1976. He's totally untrustworthy after that point. Being notable in the Cooper case had gone to his head by that point. Once more, I have to ask, what about that packing card tells you it wasn't an NB-6? The packing card does NOT negate an NB-6 or a B-4 or P-2-24 or whatever. Packing cards are about the canopies, not the containers.

Robert, we're talking about DAN GRYDER'S phony parachute, not the museum chute. I think you are the one who needs to get a good nights sleep! And you don't have to tell me about your personal experience with NB-6's. I own TWO of them, including the replica created for Richard Tosaw by Earl Cossey.

I’m still wondering why you think he’s talking about his own chute and not Hayden’s. Because I don’t think we have any actual reason to think that Hayden wasn’t given an NB-6. Cossey could indeed be describing his own rig and that still wouldn’t negate the likelihood that Hayden was given an NB-6. Cossey said he made Hayden’s chute from Navy surplus. That rings true. There would have been more of those cheaply laying around than anything else because Mark explained that in the late 60’s and early 70’s all the people sporterizing the bailout rigs started using AF rigs. He said they rarely used the Navy chutes because of the chest strap sliding up and down. They were concerned that the harness would start to get frayed and wear out from repeated abuse each jump. Mark says it was rare to see anyone with those harnesses. So it’s not unlikely at all that Hayden had an NB-6 since Cossey would have given him something that was undesirable for his skydiving clients and thus cheap to part with. And honestly I don’t think the container really matters anyways since it would just be metal parts at this point (we’re grownups and know that Cooper’s chute won’t be found in a box in amazing condition). It’s the canopy itself that would survive and is what may still be found one day and so we need to know for certain what size the damn thing was. Why do Cossey AND Hayden say 28 footer separately? Are they really both wrong? Isn’t it possible, though improbable, that back on May 21st that card erroneously ended up in the museum chute’s packing card slot? You can fit more than one card in those slots. They aren’t crazy tight. My AF rig showed up with an additional packing card in it that was blank. So you can definitely put two in there without any trouble. Could this be a brain fart by someone instead of both Cossey AND Hayden being wrong on canopy size? Because all of our criticisms about the canopy are based on the 100% truth that the packing card came from Cooper’s chute. I don’t think we should be at 100% acceptance of that. It’s probably from his chute, but we can’t know for a total certainty without further evidence. Be super nice if Earl’s family has his log books. Although I get the sense Earl did this stuff for Hayden off the books or maybe just got lazy since he figured these chutes probably weren’t going to ever be used and that he simply didn’t spend the time to write them in his logbook.

But not with the ripcord and ripcord housing loop being on opposite sides from each other. That was altered by someone who didn't know what they were doing.

*cough*