georger

I dont know that anything would have been different from Cooper's standpoint, with no way to attach any reserve. (He didnt stop things and say: 'you brought me a bunch of incompatable duds, brings on more chutes, make sure they ARE compatable!') Why would he expend any effort throwing the dud out the door just for the sake of throwing it out while leaving the others? Ive always kind of wondered if he tied the dud around his butt ... as a seat cushion?

I think we are talking about two different "cards". The instructions Cossey's loft supplied along with the chutes is a different item than the riggers packing cards which carry no instructions, just a packing date and rigger signature. The riggers packing cards are concealed in very obscure pockets on rigs. They have only the serial number of the canopy, packing date and riggers signature and FAA lic number and once in a while notes about repairs, tests or mods. 377 I think that's exactly right. Packing "cards" vr.s "user instructions". Jo is mixed up on the facts, again. It was "user instructions" for Cossey's packed NB6 that Tina handed to Cooper, not the packing CARDS. This was done for legal reasons to protect Cossey etal. It had nothing to do with 'testing' Cooper! Cooper rejected the user instructions Tina handed him saying he didnt need them; meanwhile the packer cards were in each chute not ever in Tina's hand ... So we have CARDS vrs. INSTRUCTIONS and there was only one instance of INSTRUCTIONS given to Cooper, namely Cossey's instructions specific to his specially packed NB6/8 which he later regretted having given at all in lieu of a normal parachute. Jerry has always made a good point here - If Cooper had checked the packing CARD on the one dummy chute he would have known it was a dummy chute. My understanding is Tina never saw him look for or check any of the packing cards and none of the packing cards was found pulled out laying in the plane afterward. Of the two chutes left on the plane both packing cards were still in place ... Here's a novel thought: Did Cooper reject the user Instructions because they were useless to him, and he could not read! ? Do we have any clearcut instance of Cooper ever reading anything? We have several instances of him rejecting written material. We have the written placard torn off the rear door, after Cooper specifically requested Tina (a crew member) open that door for him. He looked at (filed through) magazines (looking at pictures)? Did Tina or anyone else see him spend time reading anything? All communications with Cooper were verbal, so far as I know? He handed over a simple tersley written note of instructions - was it printed or in cursive? (McCoy also used a note) We have no proof Cooper even wrote his note. He asked for it back. When or where did anybody see Cooper write or read anything other than signing a name at signin? If Cooper has some kind of diminished capacity that is revealed in his failure to read the packing cards and dispensing with Cossey's NB6/8 written instructions, that could have something to do with his 'grudge', as a part of some broader condition. ???

Thanks Bruce - went over and made a few questions.

Regarding the packing card - I am not sure that Tina actually knew what it was and they mentioned this later. She was told to hand him a card ...her handing this to him may have been the FBI's test of Coopers skill level...and just encase he took Tina with him. They were in a quandry regarding Cooper asking for 2 backs and 2 fronts. reply] So they were testing Cooper's skills to retrieve a card out of a hand? The ADR-VOC test. And if he bails with Tina they can look for the card in Mexico City or in the metal box you directed people to in Duane's dog's grave in your back yard?

That's what Ckret expressed here. It would seem to put a dent in flying to Mexico City with a long ride with chute on, sitting on what? Funny. He either wanted to bail in the area or just wanted to escape asap, or both. But there is something in this that bothers me from a tactical point of view - with the chute on he's not exactly unemcumbered, free to move easily while also still on the ground. If he's waddling around inside the confines of the plane still on the ground with chute on, well he's an easy target tactically. If Hancock had been an agent very likely this would have ended there... so what he did isnt exactly tactically smart ? That seems to indicate someone not too smart or obsessed with escaping capture ... so you put on a chute so you have less maneuverability with no place to bail so you can be subdued more easily - one shot. I guess he was relying on his bomb to keep unwelcome guests away - as much as he could see or recognise or hear them coming? Jerry may have some thoughts on this - he's been there, done that. Did he think there was less chance of him getting the chute on in the air than on the ground? Did he donn the chute onder ground to see if it fit, was comfortable, and pleased himself? do you see where this leads ... questions..

good observations ... its too bad Galen isnt here ... he might be able to comment on where and how Tosaw got the info for his book. Galen you are being summoned! Come and paricipate as you please! It's safe here now .... I think! G.

I missed something! - did she really do this? Yes. I communicated directly with Ckret about this at the time .. and continue to communicate with Ckret as others also do - I thought you knew about this a long time ago.

And Jo, consider the waste of time and money you have caused by lodging a formal complaint with the FBI about Ckret's conduct. All misconduct complaints have to be investigated, even baseless vindictive ones like your. That was just downright MEAN. 377 well said. Its always best to confront these things right up front.

btw: good job! Thanks...

Notice that inspecting the panels, etc. is not included. I think the CAVAs should be one issue at a time. This takes more time, but it will add clarity, and prevent people from voting in a particular way because the think one major part of a multi-part issue is true, false, or indeterminate. So, let’s see “Vote Postings” please for CAVA #1 and begin discussion for CAVA #2. Ckret said he was unaware of any evidence supporting this claim (Cooper inspecting rigger card). It is intriguing to me because it would tell me a LOT about Cooper's jump and gear expertise, but I can't find any evidence besides one authors bare assertion that it occured. Military aircrew have no reason to look at packing cards for emergency rigs and don't. I dont know about paratroopers or smoke jumpers but I'd guess that they assume the gear is current and don't look at the cards. Skydivers look at them more than any other kinds of jumpers because many DZ's inspect them too and won't let you jump if you last reserve repack was beyond FAA time requirements. I had mine inspected just last weekend when I showed up at a DZ I hadn't been to for a while. The pockets for these cards on military bailout rigs are quite obscure and easily overlooked by non experts. When I jumped military surplus gear I knew where my belly reserve packing card was but never had a reason to look for one on the main because there were no legal requirements about main re-packing frequency. My main did have a packing card pocket but I only noticed it by accident after I had jumped it many times. I tend towards discounting the credibility of this CAVA 2 item, but want to hear from others. 377 another good post! I just dont know. Where did Tosaw get his info? Ex-FBI probably talked to other FBI, maybe Pringle? This does not seem to have come from H. I think Jerry would agree with that assumption. Maybe Jerry can confirm? IF Tina gave this testimony it would be in her interviews which we dont have access to. Ckret might know or he might not? In either case Ckret wont be posting back here to the Jo-blog. (And sadly I happen to agree with that for the time being... which may last forever). So... Im being really helpful here aren't I! Havent contributed one fact because I dont have the facts of this. Except for this: Ckret did confirm almost identical testimony of Tina saying 'Cooper put on the chute with ease ... surprised her'. So Ckret confirms one element of the Tosaw version of Tina's testimony. That lends credence to Tosaw. Let's also not forget he dawned the parachute early, Hancock had not even fully left and came back and saw him chuting up. Plane was still on the ground at SEA. So that is the timeframe we are talking about ... who-ever's version is true.

Thank God! Agree -

The FBI wants to solve Norjack in the worst way because it is their ONLY miss on a skyjack. If they solve this case they will be batting 1000 in a very notorious crime category. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I think you are all wet there - the FBI doesn't want it solved because if someone does solve it - they look bad. Have you ever given thought to the fact the FBI has been told to LOOK the other way? ---------------------------------- NOPE, Jo. The FBI has even gone after their own rogue agents, so your story about the agency deliberately not solving the Norjack case just doesnt withstand logical and historical scrutiny. You equate the FBI's refusal to further investigate Duane as proof that they do not want Norjack solved. There are other far more logical interpetations, but you will just dismiss them and stick with your paranoid FBI Norjack coverup theory. I think it is shameful that you hound Carr with official complaints when he has been decent and even caring towards you. I know you will never see it that way but many others do. Even complaints that are spurious hurt career advancement and you had no right to do that to Carr. Woe be unto he who doubts Jo's Weber was Cooper claims. Hell hath no fury like a women scorned. Duane didnt spend nearly two decades constructing an elaborate Cooper ruse. You just look backwards from his lie with blinders on seizing on ambiguous evidence, finding zero probative evidence and ignoring evidence that casts strong doubts on the accuracy of your Duane Weber was Dan Cooper theory. You know that Sluggo is an honorable person and a gentleman of his word. You decline his generous offer claiming that he will obstruct and possibly even mislead you. I know he wouldn't do that and I suspect that you do as well. Most forum members see it as Sluggo calling your bluff and you back pedalling, shuffling and evading. I think Duane told you he was Cooper, that he took you on a memory lane trip in WA and so forth. Missing in all of that is ONE OUNCE OF PROOF that his claim was true. You miss a big clue here Jo and it's one that you provided. I DO think Duane read that library book about Cooper and even sketched some notes in it. The real Cooper wouldn't need to read a book to find out any details about Norjack, but a wannabe sure would. I think Duane was planning some sort of con or sting based on a claim that he was Cooper or a Cooper accomplice. That is an explanation which is consistent with every provable fact you have put forth. When you get to evidence that allegedly puts Duane in a chute or in the NWA 727 everything goes "POOF" or the sources deny saying things etc etc. There are none so blind as those who will not see. 377 Very good post!

I've waded through a lot of the posts there, and had to come up for air.” That person is not alone! Gulp.

From stew to nun...? sounds pretty radical to me. Not for a 21 yr old in 1971. Back in those days - being a stewardess was a career that allowed you to travel and the pay was good for the times Um, precisely. So you don't think changing from a lifestyle where you travel lots and meet lots of different people, to being a nun is radical?? It was/is a fact there was more to Tina's decision than the hijacking ... the hijacking may have been the least of her reasons. Whatever the case it was personal and multi faceted. That said, what business is it of ours?

Factoid: There is no English word that rhymes with ORANGE. da Slug Florenge, Bloenge, Garrenge, and Roenge had hair in places that porange should not grow .... Olde English. accepted in Scrabble. My grandmother at Vancouver was our family scrabble expert - I owe it all to her.

I believe Richard Tosaw mentions in his book that Tina told him that Danny checked the rigging cards. My copy of T's book is outisde in The Box, and it's raining and cold - but if I have to go dig it out, I will. Maybe someone else has a copy at arm's length??? Check that out Bruce if you can and cite page etc... that would be very helpful. Thanks ---

Riggers packing card(s) as opposed to 'instructions for opening' which Tina handed to Cooper - Cooper tossed the instructions aside saying he didnt need those. ? Didnt know he spent time looking at the riggers cards? Where di you get that?

Great! This is what I envisioned when I suggested the CAVA Exercise! Somewhere in my notes (and I think somewhere in these Dropzone posts) Ckret talks about the time agents and LE spent visiting stores, vendors, etc looking for any connection to Cooper which included looking for a connections to his 'bomb' and any connection to the 'paper bag'. Hardware stores, drug stores, vendors at the airport, etc. all were visted and interviewed with a composite of Cooper in hand ... This not only happened at Portland but also to some extent at Tacoma because of Cooper's mentioning Tacoma, and in other localities. Im just too busy to do a search here at DZ right now but I think Ckret spoke to this issue here .. ? I think the paper bag was real and a part of the original evidence/searches looking for any connection that would turn Cooper up. 1056+ candidates plus all of the original footwork is a lot of searching.

I guess everyone who saw it reported it after the fact in their interviews/testimony. It was always part of the original description given to Law Enforcement. Ckret confirmed the bag below: Ckret Dec 4, 2007, 11:53 AM Post #666 of 1694 (1605 views) Copy Shortcut Re: [SafecrackingPLF] Composition of paper bills [In reply to] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was a small paper sack he brought on the plane with him, unknown contents. Ckret ------------------------------------------------------

small. maybe 1/4 the size of a common brown paper grocery bag or smaller. Like a lunch bag. One officer quipped 'maybe he had a change of underwear and a pair of socks in it'. It didnt look heavy. It didnt rattle. One person wondered if maybe it wasnt just what it looked like - a lunch bag with food in it. At no time did he clutch it like maybe there was a revolver inside. People were asked their impressions about the bag in interviews. Ckret mentions it in his remarks in these pages - What has always caught my attention about the bag is nobody said anything (so far as I know) about it being heavy or sounds coming from it etc to give a clue as to its contents. If anything it appeared soft and maleable as if containing contents which were likewise soft, but that is just a guess ...

My information came from Himmelsbach himself and that was in 1996 (fall of the yr). Like yourself one needs to find out if this is myth or fact - very good idea Mr. Sluggo. I will review the Norjak book and Tosaw's - unless you have already done so. It is a fact, my information came from LE in Dec 1971 who said it was 'common knowledge' among LE that Cooper had a brief case and a brown paper bag ..... Is Sluggo contending these agents were all wrong? That testimony of all the witnesses was wrong? That interviews of hardware and shope owners in the Portland area never happened? Is it a fact the first newspaper reporting of a brown paper bag is the reference Sluggo cites? I don't know and for me it does not matter because LE does not fill out its evidence sheet from newspaper tips!

377 I still think there is more T-Bar evidence out there we have never seen. For one thing an AP photo record of the excavation was made - example posted below. In the AP photo below you can see named perople, coarse and fine screening being done, etc. The composite photo shows where they were excavating on the sandbar.

I do respect Safe for trying to be logical about things in order to build a 'logical chain of evidence'. Safe realises that 'inference' can be a powerful tool. Safe commented to me recently about all the "circular" thinking going on in general. Safe also realises that the assumptions one makes is vital so far as drawing inferences which have validity (applicability). Otherwise logical methods can be just as empty as anything else - I agree with your citations for Fazio..

Go UNI !!!!!!!!! Im glad for your viewpoint on this. Safe says "only" three bundles were at Tina Bar. Nothing else. No frags. Just 3 bundles. He bases many logical conclusions on this assumption. Its either true or false. But what Safe bases his assumption on I really dont know .... but we had a pleasant backyard exchange in any event ... Safe does not strike me as the kind of person who would say something like "3 bundles only and no more" unless he felt he had a pretty solid reason for saying this. I just want to know what his sources or reasons are ... Go UNI.

Wrong G, I am quite interested. I think you have made some intriguing posts about the money find and I'd like to see a dialogue with you and Safe and Sluggo right here. Go UNI Panthers!!! I am lined up with you 100% on this one Georger. Underdog small town teams touch my heart. 377 Well the Panthers left Cedar Falls tonight for St Louiy. Grin ...