Robert99

Jo, To repeat, what Social Security Number did John Collins use when he was employed? The rest of your comments don't matter.

For Heavens Sake, Georger keep your pants on. I do not stay on the computer all day. The name of the company was Interlock Screw and Bolt Corporation out of Atlanta, GA in 1970. I do not believe they still exist. The branch manager at that time was Buck Deal. Good Luck. The SS number of John Collins has been researched, but the FBI refused to provide the work record. Only the SS recipient or a survivor or government agency can access those records. I have all of the employment data for Duane L. Weber (just the amounts made and the yrs of the reported income). The yrs from 1962 to 1967 are BLANK with 0. This list was acquired when he applied for disability. What we do know about the SS number for John Collins is that it was issued in 1964 in MS. That is the sum total of information I have and Doug Pasternac acquired that. I have had others extract the numbers from me claiming they can produce the detailed work record - but guess what? They never produced one iota. A man in CA claimed his connections would allow him to go were others could not - he gave me IOTA. He claimed he could find out Duane's employment records under Weber and Collins. If he found it - he did NOT give it to me! Jo, The Social Security Administration, and NOT the FBI, provides the work record. All you have to do is visit your local SSA office, fill out a very simple form, and they will send you that information.

Orange, I am starting with your post because it was inappropriate and you obviously have no concept of widows benefits. Duane died in 1995 and he drew SS on his name but could NOT claim the 6 yrs he spent as John Collins. When I turned 62 I was eligible to draw widows benefits which I did because my health insurance was so expensive. My health insurance took most of the benefit. When I was 65 I was eligible to draw on my own number which was more and I got medicare, but I had remarried. Having remarried I was eligible to draw on my current spouse of the time.. No you do NOT draw on more than one spouse. I now draw widows benefits off of my last husband - but not off of Duane or my benefits. What is unfair is that several wives can draw against one man. If a man had 4 wives and he was married to them at least 10 yrs - each one of them can draw against his benefits. That is NOT fair! If you divorce a man and he remarries - why should his benefitssupport a wife who left him for another man? Why should I have to spell this out to someone who does not live in the states? I only do so because I do NOT use the system the way other's do. If my last spouse had a wife who divorced him after 10yr and her new spouse dies and the spouse she divorced dies - she can draw the highest amount...even though she did him wrong and they divorced. NOW that is NOT fair. When you divorce someone - you should NOT be entitled to their benefits...unless there are minor children. In other words reap what you sow. Jo, In post number 28181 you claimed that you had copies of W-2s for Duane's employment by a nut and bolt company just prior to November 1971 as well as copies of the tax returns on which those W-2s were reported. You also claimed that Sluggo visited your house and saw those W-2s and tax returns. Georger has asked you for the name of the company that appears on those W-2s. All you have to do is read the information on those forms. Who issued the W-2s? They are the equivalent of todays 1099s (or whatever it is). Also, if you have the SSN that Duane used as John Collins, you can get an earnings report for that number from the Social Security Administration. The above actions are as simple as it can get. So there is no excuse for you to now claim otherwise. Put up or shut up!

The company? What company? Name it. Jo, What Social Security Number did Duane use with the John Collins name?

Is it possible that Bruce Smith, or someone else, could talk Hayden into popping that Pioneer chute just to get the canopy information?

Trust me on this.. there is no way in hell he could be head down... it takes a LOT of skill to fly in that attitude... now.. back flying with the head a little low or when a student does it in an attitude called Tango Uniform... yup... its a position I have seen many times that newbies manage to find all on their own. Now... a head down dive.... by one of the fastest guys in the world.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yemCdQSKkt8 THIS is some serious skill Amazon, I said "a general head first free fall" which is something you would probably refer to as a "delta" position (as illustrated on page 196 of "The Skydiver's Handbook" by Poynter and Turoff, 10th revised edition). I am in complete agreement with you that the fellow in the youtube video requires great skill in keeping his body pointed straight down and streamlined (keeping his body's "drag area" at its absolute minimum). And any thing he does that increases his body's "drag area" is going to slow him down. Let me also point out that the so-called terminal velocities of 120 MPH and 190 MPH, mentioned on the referenced page above, are actually only good at sea level standard conditions. At higher altitudes they will be faster. Also on the same page is the statement that "Short, fat people freefall faster at terminal than tall skinny ones ...". In my always humble opinion, in a straight-down head-first freefall the tall skinny person will have the smaller "drag area" and will descend faster than a short and fat person of equal weight.

Hominid, We have some conflicting information here. Let me do an extended explanation and I'll try to explain where each number comes from. First, the 170 KIAS (the number read on the airspeed indicator assuming no position or instrument error) came from the NWA performance group in Minneapolis and, strictly speaking, applied only to the early part of the flight to Reno. As the fuel load decreases, the indicated airspeed for best range decreases also. However, the airliner crew maintained 170 KIAS since they were told while in the Portland area that they had sufficient fuel to get to Reno at 170 KIAS. No point in dragging the flight out all night! At 8:13:14 PM PST, the airliner reported to Seattle ATC that they were at 10,000 feet altitude. At 8:15:52 PM PST, Seattle ATC informed the airliner that the Portland altimeter setting was 30.03. Then follows the famous 18 minute period of silence on this particular frequency. In the "FBI notes" at 8:10 PM PST, the crew reported oscillations of the cabin rate of climb indicator. The suggestion is made by the recorder of this information that this may be the best estimate of when Cooper jumped. Also at 8:10 PM PST, the aircraft was reported to be at 10,000 feet altitude, 170K (this would be 170 KIAS), and that the total air temperature was -7 degrees Centigrade. The statement also reports "MSPFO calculated TAS (True Air Speed) and range from this data". If MSPFO can calculate True Air Speed from the above information, so can we. All it takes is a simple pilot's flight calculator, and they have been around longer than I have, to determine that the TAS is 194 Knots. The sled tests have absolutely nothing to do with the above calculations. And I have not seen any flight performance data from those tests and have no idea where those numbers came from. In addition, I don't know if Carr or any of the other FBI personnel involved with the Cooper investigation had any flight experience or training. But if Carr did, he was probably referring to 173 Knots Indicated Air Speed. If you have a pilot's hand calculator and want to go through the precise calculation required to find the TAS, let me know (including your type of calculator).

377, That's exactly why I agree with you that Cooper's selection of the military parachute was the correct choice. I would certainly have chosen the C-9 but for other reasons. The tossing of ones body out of the plane at over 200 MPH is moot... as soon as you leave.. your body decelerates down to normal freefall speeds rather rapidly. Deployment of the canopy would be quite well within the normal listed tolerances even if he nutted up and pulled the ripcord right off the step. It takes a lot of skill and practice to maintain a human body in freefall at over 225 MPH there are only a few of us in the world who can do it.. and maintain stability Amazon, My point was that with the military parachute, Cooper would have basically been within its operational capabilities from the time he separated from the aircraft. But with a "high speed" 160 MPH FAA parachute, Cooper would probably been above that speed for most of the free fall even if he was an experienced jumper. He did not have any visual references to help with his stabilization until he was below the lowest cloud layer and, hopefully, could see some lights on the ground. Even with just a general head first free fall, Cooper would probably be exceeding 180 MPH. For the record, I crunched some numbers along this line about a year or two ago. But Cooper jumped in 1971. Today, with the proper training and equipment, the above comments may not apply to advanced users of parachute technology.

377, That's exactly why I agree with you that Cooper's selection of the military parachute was the correct choice.

Bruce, Cooper specified that the landing gear would be left down and that the flaps would be set at 15 degrees before taking off from Seattle. The NWA aircraft performance group told the crew to fly at 170 Knots Indicated Airspeed to maximize the airliner's range (i.e., most miles per gallon of fuel). At the 10,000 foot altitude, with the temperature and sea level presssure corrections plugged in, that 170 Knots Indicated Airspeed becomes about 195 Knots True Airspeed. Expressed in MPH, the 195 KTAS is about 225 MPH True Airspeed. After reaching 10,000 feet altitude, the airliner tried to maintain exactly 170 KIAS for the remainder of the flight to Reno. Bruce, I think you are somehow reading Knots (which is one nautical mile per hour) as Kilometers per hour.

Bruce, Please let me amplify on a couple of matters. At the time Cooper jumped, the airliner was in steady level flight at 10,000 feet and had a true airspeed of about 225 MPH. The last I heard, the FAA described a "low speed" civilian parachute as being good to 150 MPH and a "high speed" civilian parachute as being good to 160 MPH. 377 is correct in saying that the military parachute would have been the better choice for this jump. Whatever it was, it was probably good for about 200 MPH.

She left her trailing wire antenna behind, which would probably have enabled her to reach all the way to San Francisco. That was a mistake. No rubber boat is another. Still, there's no telling for sure if she didn't find someplace to put down before the fuel ran out. I'll admit there were better pilots than Earhart. Her pancake landing in Hawaii showed that. But with two sets of eyes searching for land and one of them a navigator, it is possible. Earhart was somewhere close to Howland Island when she made her last transmission that "we must be upon you" and her fuel exhaustion time was just minutes later. If they had had enough fuel to fly another two hours, they would have found Howland in all probability. Amelia would even had time to learn how to do a DF steer properly, something that was required of private pilots up to about 1970.

Bruce, The NB-6 is a military name and would refer to the same parachute even when manufactured by different companies. For instance, the Boeing B-17 was made by a number of companies but is never referred to by the other manufacturer's name. However, there may be some differences in identification numbers to establish who made the specific item. So if referring to an NB-6 parachute, it might be listed as "NB-6 parachute, manufactured by Pioneer", etc.. For your information Steinthals is listed as the manufacturer of the NB-6 harness that I have. 377 is probably right that the parachute Hayden has is a civilian one. Or perhaps a civilian container and harness with a military canopy. Riggers have considerable leeway in these matters, and some appear to go well beyond that.

Quote377 writes: They find some sheet aluminum with rivets. They say it's probably from Earhart's Lockheed. When it's pointed out that the rivet spacing rules it out they cite a repair made to the plane and say this must have been part of the repair patch. R99 replies: Some surviving Lockheed personnel also ruled out the possibility of the sheet aluminum having anything to do with the repairs. 377 writes: I think searchers will find her plane on the bottom of the ocean using side scan sonar. The US Navy tasked with finding the missing door from a 747 that suffered explosive decompression outbound from Hawaii, with only an approximate location, found and recovered the door about 80 miles out from Honoulu using side scan sonar. It just takes tedious search patterns but sonar will find her plane eventually. R99 replies: That 747 door was located several hundred miles from Hawaii. I think it took well over an hour of flying for the airliner to get back to Honolulu. Are you aware that deep water searchs near Howland Island, using the latest technology, have been made recently for Amelia's aircraft and that more are scheduled for next summer? Do you follow this matter on the various web sites?

Bruce, 377, and All, For several years prior to early November 1971, I owned an NB-6 backpack emergency parachute. Currently, I own portions of an NB-6 Parachute (harness, container, pilot chute, ripcord). My parachute, and all other NB-6s that I have seen, resembled the parachute in the NB-6 pictures on Sluggo's web page. It is my understanding that the NB-8 container and harness are similar to the NB-6's container and harness. If that is correct, I can categorially state that the parachute in Bruce's article does not have either an NB-6 or NB-8 container or harness. In fact, the container and harness demonstrated by Norman Hayden appears to be a hybrid of items from separate parachute systems and which would probably be assembled by a rigger such as Earl Cossey. If the information on the parachute identification card is correct about it being a 26 foot diameter, ripstop conical canopy, then it is probably the same canopy that would be used in an NB-6. However, from what can be seen about the third ripcord pin stud from the top, the rig does not appear to use the usual NB-6 pilot chute. But the parachute will have to be opened for a determination of the canopy's details, history, etc.. The certification number for Cossey is given as 1579638 which is a number assigned to him by the FAA. However, the certification number of 532424217 given for Wes Jeppsen is actually his Social Security Number. The FAA made an ill-fated effort to use SSN's for their record keeping but that was soon cancelled due to identity theft.

Did the $200 NB6 bailout rigs contain 26 ft Navy conical canopies? I had a guy offer me $250 and a 24 ft ripstop canopy for my 26 ft Navy conical canopy in 1968. I seem to recall that C9s were abundant and cheap but Navy conicals were getting scarce and pricey. My Navy conical was literally like new, and it still is. Only one ride. Capewell cutaway over scenic Pope Valley, about 1973. 377 The $200 bucks included the 26 foot conical, which was the whole point of the purchase. And those canopies were very hard to find. Mine was a used one, maybe 15 or 20 years old, but it was still worth it in that day and age. Some minor changes were made to the container, under the rigger's directions, to help adapt the chute to the sailplane that I flew when wearing it. It was the best deal possible at that time since the newer civilian chutes were just being introduced and cost several times more than the NB-6.

377, In the late 1960s in the mid-west, a surplus 28 foot emergency chute cost about $100 for the total rig. An NB-6 cost about $200 for the total rig. The cost differential was worth it since the NB-6 was very compact compared to the other chutes and this made it possible for pilots to wear it in very cramped cockpits. I owned an NB-6 apparently until early November 1971 when the aircraft I used it in was sold.

Jerry, We have exchanged posts on this quite a while back. Having visited that location, I agree with you that the Washougal area is extremely difficult for travel and seaching. My problem is I don't think Cooper landed there in the first place. I'll also agree with you that Cooper landed close to some flowing water. R99

If Cooper can't be found in the area where he had to land, then it is time to start looking for him in the areas where he couldn't possibly have landed.

Bruce, The part about Cossey using one of the back packs for "recreational jumping" won't work. If it was used in that manner it would need a reserve and neither backpack had the D-rings for mounting a reserve.

Cooper could turn out to be a man with no jumps and no knowledge that a 727 could be jumped. 377 377, Cooper confirmed with the ticket agent that the airliner about to land in Portland was a 727. It was important to Cooper that the aircraft be a 727. It is no stretch to say that Cooper knew that it could be jumped.

Can someone enhance the bottom instrument image? http://huntfordbcooper.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/testflightairstairs.jpg I kinda looks like the altimeter is reading between 8000 and 9000 ft, but that's a guess. Georger, can you do it? I think you can PM even if you are banned from posting. 377 377, Here is my guess on the instruments. The top one is an altimeter (note the knob at the 7:00 position for setting the barometric pressure). The middle one is a rate of climb indicator. Both of these instruments are exposed only to the static pressure in the stairway area (that is, they have not been plugged into the aircraft's static pressure system). The bottom one is a clock. Note the "12" at the top of the dial. Going counter-clockwise from the "12", you can see two two-digit numbers at what would be the "11" and "10" o'clock positions. These three instruments were a jury-rigged "test instrument panel" and were probably being photographed by an additional camera (other than the one that took this picture). Such information as airspeed and actual aircraft altitude would have to come from the cockpit instruments.

Buckshot...whether or not Braden was Cooper, this info is fascinating, for reasons 377 has explained. I have not heard of CIA being in contact during the Cooper hijacking before. (not having a copy of the FOIA files anymore.... Is it possibly this that was the redacted portion? Your comments about knowing about the 727 test jumps is exactly what 377 surmised...would you say this was fairly widely known among SOG and other elite/special forces in Nam? Would it have been known more widely, do you think? (like 'ordinary' paratroopers?) Orange, You can read the transcripts (which presumably are complete) of the conversations between the airliner crew and NWA personnel while on the ground in Seattle at Sluggo's web page. The information about the jumpability of the 727 appeared to have originated with Boeing personnel but it may just have come "thru" Boeing personnel. In any event, the flight crew was informed that the 727 could be flown with the stairs down and thus it could be jumped. However, the NWA flight crew seems to have had more difficulty flying the aircraft than they were led to believe they would have.

Could this parachute have been used by a WW2 American airman?

That Seahawks/New England game must have a good one. Especially, since the Seahawks played the New York Giants and New England played the New York Jets. Very interesting.