Robert99

There is no physical evidence that an NB-6 parachute rig, or any component of an NB-6 rig, was involved in the Cooper hijacking. This nonsense originated in claims made by Cossey but does not have any factual basis. Hayden has said that the two backpacks he passed to the FBI were similar. They were assembled by Cossey from military surplus parts, some of which may have been previously used. The Hayden backpack that is at the WSHM does not have an NB-6 harness, it does not have an NB-6 container, it does not have an NB-6 pilot chute, and it does not have an NB-6 canopy. This can be determined by just looking at the pictures of it. In the 1960-1970 timeframe, I owned a genuine and totally NB-6 emergency parachute rig and wore it when flying certain aircraft that had very cramped cockpits. The NB-6 rigs were several times more expensive than the Hayden backpack rigs. The NB-6 conical parachute canopy has several construction features that are different from other canopies. There are also differences in the NB-6 container and pilot chute construction. I have posted several detailed explanations of these differences here over the last 15 years. The solution to the non-existent Cooper parachute "problem" is simple. JUST IGNORE EVERYTHING THAT COSSEY SAID. Also, I have never seen a military personnel parachute that had a "low speed" rating. If the recently found canopy in North Carolina has such a restriction, then it is probably not a military canopy in the first place.

Georger, Thanks for mentioning The Standard Generalized Theory of Existence on Earth and the information in items 1 and * above. Perhaps some of the newbies here will begin to understand that most Nobel Prize winning physicists agree that water runs downhill, at least in the Portland/Vancouver area. Good work!

Injecting McCoy back into the Cooper hijacking (again!!!!!) is just a publicity stunt. Tina Mucklow and a lot of other people were shown dozens, if not hundreds, of photos of suspects and those undoubtedly included pictures of McCoy. Reportedly, not a single person that had actually seen Cooper identified him as McCoy or even having a close resemblance to McCoy. This is just recycled nonsense. Dream on!

Georger, I am actually surprised that you would finally reveal something like the above! Is there anything else you would like to get off your mind?

Cola, you are 100 percent right. Kenny Christiansen was not Cooper. And it is highly unlikely that any suspect named on this forum or elsewhere was Cooper either.

Georger, you are jumping to conclusions here. What you have stated doesn't support your claims. You just need to stick to facts.

I didn't say the quote that you credit me with saying in a post on 6/17/2024 at 9:37 AM. And I don't know who did.

It is highly unlikely that the flight crew could see the "lights" (meaning the actual streetlights and such) of Portland. There were three cloud layers under the airliner, and they essentially constituted an almost complete undercast. The crew probably meant that they could see the "glow" of the Portland lights through those three cloud layers. The airliner was 10,000 feet higher than Portland and the "glow" would be visible from a considerable distance. I speak from personal experience on this point.

Since Cooper specified the aircraft configuration, the issue was always about fuel. If you read the transcripts of the communications between the aircraft and the technical people in Minneapolis, the crew was only advised when they were in the Portland area that they would have enough fuel to reach Reno. Prior to Portland, the crew had been repeatedly passing fuel consumption and fuel onboard information to MSP.

Georger, don't hold your breath on this. Ulis has Cooper landing on the west side of his new flight path. As he points out, the wind was blowing toward the northeast or north-northeast during the jump. This means that Ulis apparently believes that Cooper drifted upwind and landed upwind from the airliner's flight path. Mother Nature doesn't work that way. His new landing zone is about a mile from Tena Bar but there is something that Ulis apparently doesn't realize or understand the significance of although it has been pointed out to him and everyone else numerous times. The Northwest Lower River Road lies between Tena Bar and the new landing zone. It is built on top of a levee that results in things east of the levee going into the Vancouver Lake drainage area. Things west of the Northwest Lower River Road goes into the Columbia River. I visited the area shown in the video, and marked as the new landing zone, in November 2009. It was farmland and had been recently harvested. Based on the small stubby things (corn stalks?) sticking out of the ground, it appeared that corn was the most recently crop grown there and that the corn (or whatever it was) had been used as feed by the dairy operation just across the road. The above has been endlessly discussed on DZ since about 2009 or early 2010.

Georger, your last two lines have problems. Sluggo was undoubtedly referring to the refueling time at the gate. It would be much shorter and convenient even if a fuel truck was required to pump the fuel from the ground fuel line into the aircraft. Who knows, since the fuel trucks were not normally used at larger airports in 1971 to refuel scheduled airliners, perhaps some of the trucks had to go to the airport fuel facility to load up before going to the NWA airliner out in the brush.

Reportedly, just one line of the update caused today's mess. If five lines of the update were screwed up, would civilization as we know it still exist tonight?

Chaucer has previously posted that he is in contact with CeCe Moore who is a genuine expert in tracking down people through DNA and is affiliated with Parabon (sp.?). Moore has helped law enforcement in hundreds of cases including some which received national media attention. If the Cooper case turns up meaningful DNA then Moore should be consulted and the DNA analysis handled on a professional level.

Georger, why didn't you just say that you do not have a source for the claims you made in post #63673 above and for which I asked for sources in post #63674 above? You obviously have a lot of time to waste and I don't.

Georger, how about explaining what exactly you mean by "high-performance combat aircraft" in this context. Do you have specific aircraft in mind? Fighters or bombers? And exactly where was this "titanium/steel alloy" used in those aircraft? In the airframe, engine, or where? My main professional interest is/was Flight Dynamics (meaning performance and stability and control) but that required a bit of knowledge about everything else for each aircraft. And remember we are talking about 1971 and earlier aircraft.

Georger, I have discussed the meaning of the rotation of this pack of bills in any number of posts over probably the last 10 years. Obviously, you didn't bother to read those posts or have a really bad memory. So do read the following. The rotation means that the bills were NOT BOUND by anything in the middle of the pack when found. The rotation does mean that the bills were at least LOOSELY BOUND, or had been bound, by something on the left section (as seen above) of the pack. There is apparently not any information available on any bindings, rubber or paper, that was found on this pack of bills. In view of the overall matter, the bills were probably rotated by water action at the location where they were found. If the pack's orientation had been noted when it was found, then further conclusions as to how the pack got there might have been possible.

Georger, what have you been drinking?

Cola, I deal with facts and "truth" is a universal reality. What institution are you associated with?

Cola and Georger, Flattery will get you nowhere. As far as I am concerned there is no ax to be buried. Let's just stick to facts. Hopefully, within the next week or so, I will have time to post on some new information related to the flight path. And a post by FlyJack played a part in getting me to check into it.

Cola, could you please write in English. What are you saying above and what are you talking about? I don't know what you mean in your reference to Sluggo. But he is the one who told me how to find the Cooper forum on DropZone. Sluggo and I had other interactions, some of which are included in his site which is now available for your review on Shutter's site unless Chaucer has deleted it. If you are interested in what I have posted here over the last 15 years all you have to do is look them up.

Georger & FlyJack (?), The above posts are just more of your nonsense. I'll try to answer some of them here but it is obvious that you have not even read the posts you claim you are responding to. First, the only aircraft to trail the airliner to Reno was a C-130 which had joined up with the airliner somewhere in Oregon or Northern California. The C-130 was mentioned in the handoff from the Seattle Center to the Oakland Center and then elsewhere. You would know this if you had bothered to read the Oakland Center radio transcripts which I have repeatedly encouraged everyone to do. Georger claims that I made a lot of posts in 2008. If Georger had bothered to read my first posts he would know that all of them were after March 2009 which is the date I joined this Cooper forum at the suggestion of Sluggo. If I remember correctly, my very first post on this forum pointed out that there were big time problems with the so-called FBI flight path. Over a period of time, I made additional posts that the money bag would have to land in a very restricted area (less than one-half square mile) in order for the money to end up by natural means at the Tena Bar location where it was found. There is now additional information to support the Western Flight Path and that the so-called FBI flight path always had problems. I will post on that in a few days.

I agree with you that this whole exchange is nonsense. I have been there and Chaucer refuses to reveal any aeronautical knowledge or experience that he supposedly possesses.

Chaucer, your last statement above is just more nonsense. In all probability, the Seattle Air Traffic Control people had access to the very same radar information that the USAF used. In instances such as this, the various Federal Government agencies would be operating under a Memorandum of Understanding between the agencies. It would be unnecessary and a waste of resources for each agency to have its own radar facility and personnel.

Interesting enough, the FBI also had two different USAF Navigators calculate the descent rate and landing zone. Their names and comments have been posted on this thread. And oddly enough, the USAF Navigators were not asked to determine the flight path of the airliner. And they may not have even had access to the flight path information. Weird things happened in relation to the descent rate and flight path information used in the FBI investigation. Actually, the descent rate for the jumper and parachute were common knowledge. The flight path could easily be determined from information held by the Seattle Air Traffic Control Center. But that would be doing it the easy way.