Cola

Well done.....Georger... well done Last I had we were at 2 lines roughly 14 ft. I'll have to look at 302's again if there is one with these measurements. If anyone has this feel free to post. I love Tom's specificity of language - a true scientist in consideration and measure in his assessment. One record says two shroud lines on 11/26/ 71 The other says 3 shroud lines on 12/21/71 I'm not fond of notes on scanned documents because the lack context, but in 1976 there are these which also say 2 shroud lines - any insights on Serial 48,148,137 are/maybe? pg. DB Cooper- 28010

If the following Ckret post is accurate then Cooper may have been without the line needed for your mini Coops drag bag. What is the confidence on the drag bag vs this assertion? Speculation following this line of thinking: Coops initial thought - attach the bag to the harness with loop, then over the next hour he starts to doubt this idea and scrambles to wrap the money bag further opening the other front pack and unfolding the chute thinking something like a bindle or hobo sack on a stick to wrap the money further. Maybe this gets messy and he strips two cords settles on a drag bag as his best option. All speculation:

You ever come across a photo of the McNally bag the farmer found? It seems that would have made a great photo op and story for the paper. Was the bag intact or did explode - rip?

If the dummy chute was goofy and it was obvious something was wrong wouldn't it be to his advantage to cut into it and explore it. See what that X was all about. He's taking on huge risk not cutting the chutes on the ground at all and just accepting them as is. Cutting open the chutes is mitigating risk of the unknown through inspection. trackers, holes, cut lines? What if the plan may have always been to ask for 2 sets and cut one open on the plane to make sure there was no funny stuff therein. Its killing me that these interviews don't even comport... but I have to be more stoic - lets toast to these disadvantages being our advantage..!

You produce such great content, can't wait to watch. By choice, the chutes are not my strong point, but maybe this is more fun for thought.. In Tina saying that she did not see Coops tamper with the two large chutes. Is she actually saying that he cut on both front chutes? She has two times noted when he was cutting, seems like it would be further cutting on the one chute but the remark "he was occupied opening one of the parachute packs". Seems odd that he would open the other, leaves me wondering on what the real semantics are here. pg. DB-Cooper 26969 pg. DB-Cooper -26977 To bad we do not have Alice's description on the color of the chute. - Alice's comments:

Even Ckret only ever went 99%, but fine "I'll not argue the - point"

Ryan, what do you think of the Cooper chute serial number of S/N - 7/60 ? is that it?

Good, good so there is more than one serial number to be evaluated. My take on the chute 302-s is that I have seen more of a reliance on validating or invalidating chutes found along V-23 based on the descriptive detail and Cossey himself ruling these out. What I have not picked up on in the 302's is an invalidation by serial number first then Cossey as a secondary confirmation. It seems to be the procedure that when a chute comes in they look at against their descriptive detail, which appears to be wish washy, then they check with Cossey for a final visual review and determination. Correct me if I wrong but I believe the thorn in FlyJacks side was the wish washy-ness of the descriptive detail and reliability of the chute evidence.I believe FLY held onto the possibility that the agency may have indeed collected Cooper's chute at one time but mistakenly/unknowingly ruled it out because they relied on Cossey, whom FLY doubted on accuracy. Anyway If there were any official testimony-document-302 out there of the kind that said: the found chute was ruled out based on the serial numbers then we checked with Cossey to confirm, I'd settle my doubt and believe that the serial numbers are available. This was Fly's AOE - so if your out there FLY we still need you! If your done but still lurking maybe you'd consider sharing your research file tree or selling a copy? PM me. I may look into the model numbers today as I recall a jpg of a packing card being around. But to me the chutes are low yield and I have other things I'm interested in tugging at with my time. I'd rather defer on the chutes in hopes that Olmisscub's/Ryan's book may have this detail.

That's great insight maybe someone will come across that one day. The parachutes are not my strong suit, I have mostly kept away from this cluster. I think what we have seen and what FLYJACK posted were the parachute model numbers off the packing cards. I do not know that anyone has ever come across the serial numbers for the canopy or harness. My understanding of the 302's is that the serial numbers for the Canopy or Harness may have been misplaced. Although, Ckret claimed on Jan 1 2008 that he had the serial numbers. Maybe he picked thee up from Cossey later of they eventually made their way into the records or maybe hes referring to the model numbers off the packing cards. I'm unable to upload Jpgs to the DZ at present but the 302 records referring to my serial number finger quotes "lost in the mail" are 302 - Part 28 - DB Cooper pg. 9834 - October 31, 72 " COSSEY stated that he had made available to Agents of the FBI his records containing serial numbers of the parachutes supplied to UNSUB, COSSEY stated that his records were not returned, — A careful review of the file does not reflect the location of COSSEY's records." "Will recontact COSSEY in an effort to have him recheck his records to determine if he possibly has them or has a duplicate set which may reveal the serial numbers of the four parachutes supplied to UNSUB on November 24, 1971," " the serial number of the chutes supplied UNSUB and was unable to locate them. COSSEY was asked to recheck to determine if possibly the numbers were still in his possession and he stated he would do so. COSSEY further advised he would call the FBI if he located the book in which the serial number of the parachute supplied UNSUB was contained." 302 - Part 35 - DB Cooper pg.13202 - November 6,74 " The missing.parachute in this case- the one apparently used by the UNSUB- is described as 28 feet, nylon, white, flight circular (non-stearable), which was packed in a model NB6 (Navy back pack 6) container and harness. The file does not say if the chute or container had a serial number on it." January 1, 2008 just out of curiosity's sake, did the FBI ever record the serial numbers of the gear that was used?? us riggers do keep logbooks and MAYBE some of the gear found its way back into use?

File under Actionable evidence - This detail has escaped me, but I came across an old post on Cossey's lead rigger seal of HF9. Not that I have much confidence in someone finding the Back chute, but if it happens what is the possibility of some portion of this seal still being affixed to the chute? Anyone with Rigging experience able to comment on the occurrences and condition of lead rigger seals from the 70's being present during a subsequent repacking. How likley were you to see portions of a riggers seal during a repacking? The serial numbers for the chutes were finger quotes "lost in the mail". Anyone have a pic of a pack with Cossey's lead seal still in place? https://www.dropzone.com/forums/topic/55701-d-b-cooper-unsolved-skyjacking/?do=findComment&comment=2489606 Earl J. Cossey is still listed in the FAA database as a Private Pilot and Master Rigger (his seal symbol is HF9)

I thought that one was headed off the rails but it proved out to be one of the more dynamic and entertaining episodes!

Olemiss, its a slow month over here. If you felt inclined I think we'd appreciate you teasing us Cooperites one of these days with your table of contents, or a snippet if you felt like sharing. How is the book any update on release? I heard you say that you finally completed Tena Bar.

It's not what I accept as fact, its not Proof and neither am I claiming its a Known, but I'm approaching belief on this one. If I could find out those tid bits on my thoughts about how he interacted with the bomb I could firm up my belief. However I'm open to being swayed from my thoughts and beliefs.

Personally, I would put 'proving' before 'knowing'. Thinking, Believing, Knowing, Proving - Acceptance - Denial This is a handy tool for an across the board categorizing of what someone is presenting to you. Is this someone giving me a thought, belief, known or proof and do I accept or deny these. Within a thought hierarchy Knowing proceeds Proof. Knowing is personal, its the I know. The engineers at NASA, they knew, they could place a man on the moon long before we saw the proof. You know what you had for breakfast and only you know this, here this is your Known. You can tell us what you ate, but can you prove it? Such a trivial thing but only 10 hours later do you actually have any proof to offer beyond your own testimonial? Probably not. This is where acceptance and denial comes in. If I trust you, I'll cross the perception bridge you are presenting and agree with the testimonial of your Known. But if I accept your testimonial as truth I can only myself ever hold a Belief in the testimonial of your Known. I can not posses a Knowing myself - of - your - Known. Neither can I prove what you ate. If we ate breakfast together this experience would be our shared known. But 10 hour later could either of us offer proof of what we ate to someone else other than our testimonial.

Georger I have lurked on you for years, I truly think your as good as they come on psy around these parts tell us what can this informs us of the man? What does having a grudge tell us of the man...

Elcomeway otay ordplaysway...

Let's not bring Himmy back... It is informative but what does it say? Is it just an off the cuff remark or is it a dark confession of someone whom understands themselves? Is there more to this reply? I agree it's not a clue until you have a candidate, then its a post factum clue. I think and hope the grudge will serve as a motive if it is uncoverable.

Dudeman we are all good… A short philosophy lesson on the case and life: There is a thought hierarchy to information in life and the case that goes like this: Thinking, Believing, Knowing, Proving - Acceptance - Denial My post yesterday was introducing a thought of mine, not a proof, not a known, not a belief. I shared the thought for fun. Birthed it here on this board in a post, so it could become our collective thought to chew on and kick around. In my usual disclaimer, I think I'm consistent in marking my post as my thoughts when they are, my beliefs when I hold them, and the knows when they are refereed, there are very few proofs in this case to be held. If the bomb was real or not it is of little concern. What is of concern is what can we deduce from the bomb that would provide insights into the man. What do we have other than our deductions to form our thoughts and assign weights to build beliefs. Our legal system's operates at a threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt. It does not operate at the threshold of nothing less than fact and absolute proof. I have no expectation that anyone in the Vortex will ever bring proof on Cooper, I could be wrong, but armchair investigators are unlikely in my mind to come in contact with actionable evidence. What we mostly will have on any candidate is our deductions and the candidate that fits beyond a reasonable doubt may satisfy our collective definition of who Cooper was.

On this, I don't have any answers that are the factual truth, but for me I have decided where I am on this one and what I see of the evidence says to me the bomb was not a prop. Further confirmation for me would be if the stews or records could in the future help us understand the on the ground interactions with the bomb. At some point a prop is past its utility. It has brought him cooperation, it has brought him all of his request, it gave him control. But on the ground does he continue to use the bomb for intimidation or does he seek reassurance /comfort in the bomb? A prop has no utility in obliterating any trace of him. Is he interacting with the case during times where he is feeling vulnerable? If its a prop, and he continued to interact with it on he ground, I'd think there would be a vocal element to a ruse, With a prop would he be inclined to remind the stews, this is for real, I'm a threat - I mean business, no funny stuff. In my mind if it were a prop he'd try to intimidate and bluff them further verbally and not just stick his hand in the case and sit there silently. If he kept silent with no verbal intimidation but continued to interact with the bomb is that a tell of authenticity? IIf he's silent is that him treating the bomb as an emotional support animal going to it in those moments where hes felling insecure. Hes not displaying the bomb or the threat but hes quietly interacting with it because it brings him comfort. He knows it's real and he's using the bomb for his own self-assurance and not as an intimidation tactic. If its real it represents that ultimate control of his destiny. When he is worked up over the fueling procedure he is showing us that he is feeling insecure possibly even vulnerable and paranoid. In that moment does he go back to putting his hand in the case in front of Tina? Is he doing that action without giving any verbal threat to her. Is this actions intent for his own peace of mind more so than to display a threat? Would a prop give him emotional comfort? Just so I'm clear - there is no record of how he handles the bomb on the ground and this is just my conjecture of if we could find out how he interacted with the bomb and stews on the ground we may be able to better weigh the authenticity.

I have through on this and I think Cooper was deliberate in his intentions and willing to go out in a bang if needed. I think the scale tilts in favor of the bomb being real but that there is a further assurance in my mind that may yet be confirmed. If the bomb were real he was most vulnerable when the passengers deplaned and Tina went to and fro getting the chutes/meals. To me the tell of authenticity would come form the stews recalling if after coming back form the Lavatory Cooper continued to place his his hand back in the attache case for comfort. Basically while the passengers deplaned and Tina went to and fro was he watching the door then with his hand in the case. Possibly Flo, Alice, Tina may recall seeing him place his hand in there after the request were delivered. In flight he kept the pressure/control on until his demands were met. However once on the ground did he seek security form the bomb by continuing to place his hand in the case? To me if the stews/records could confirm he continued to seek control over his destiny by interacting with the Bomb then in my mind that action of seeking control/security in the bomb tips the scale from a ruse to very much real.

That's a fairly high bar, but I like your thinking. This was likley obtainable only in a 1985 world when getting Coops would have been a much bigger deal. Anyone care to speculate on what is or could be obtainable these days if someone were find Coops? (How about a ticket to Ireland and a few pints at your local establishment?)

Hahah, My Grammy use to say if you can't say something nice don't say anything at all. She was the silent type.

You added so many n's there it was as if you were filling in a grave. I feel as though, I failed to delight your senses, I'll try harder next time. I'm curious though why the need to EDIT such a post? We could always go back to a FLYJACK style message board of A fights B and either A or B triumph. I'd prefer to continue on with my own Mind-Hunting. Random inputs and provocations may be what we are left with after we have exhausted the gathered evidence.

Provocation Fridays….. This is the group to ask… If you care to share.. Have you ever had an interesting dream about Cooper or gone on a Cooper inspired adventure? In your dreams have you ever met Cooper? Have you met someone that knew him, a stew, a pilot, an acquaintance of his, or hey - even a spirit …? Have you ever dreamed you solved the case and found Cooper or that missing clue? In your dreams have you ever talked about Cooper with a spouse, an acquaintance, a fellow Vortex member? Has anyone dreamed on one or multiple specific case details in an unusual manner? Have you ever had sequential Cooper dreams day after day? If you could direct your dream to focus on one aspect of the case what would it be? How do you interpret any of these dreams? I'm sure more of your than just myself have been haunted in their dreams by this case...This is all for fun.. if you care to share. .

I don't think they could have made a run for it, honestly it took till 6:24 to confirm the passengers were loaded on a bus. During that time the crew was freaking out over the passengers just milling about the airplane, the fuel truck and active runways. Further, Coops initial instructions were for the crew to remain seated. According to Tina’s 2nd interview Coops reiterated this to her when she went to get the parachutes. When Tina returned to the jetliner she noted placing the parachute in the seat next to Cooper this suggest to me that he was seated and possibly he was watching the door with his hand still inside the case while she went to a fro. I have spent the time with the records but don’t care to lay out and post every movement of the stews beyond what has been put down by Sluggo. For me I don't think there is any further warmth that could be brought to the case "today" in covering and recreating at an intuition, assertion, and reference level where the girls were or weren't and what the opportunities of escape could have been.