10 10
quade

DB Cooper

Recommended Posts

(edited)
7 hours ago, mrshutter45 said:

Cossey claims none of the reserves had pilot chutes. none of the back chutes were opened on the plane. 

 

Front-mount reserves not having pilot chutes would be consistent for that era.

But the only way "E" makes sense is if that second chute described is the pilot chute, but 24 inches, not feet. Could it have been opened later for inspection by the FBI, and that info added to the report? 

Edited by dudeman17

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RobertMBlevins said:

WolfRiverJoe says in part:

WolfRiverJoe and I are on the same page. It's been a few years, but I got a pretty long interview with Hayden via two separate phone calls. (His business is not far from my little home office.) I can tell you a few things about that. 

First, Hayden never had any chutes modded. He said he 'knew' what color and sizes the canopies were, but he had never looked inside either container, not once, since he bought them. 

Said:  "I bought both of them at the same time..."

Said:  "I think it was 1968, but could have been a little earlier..."

Said: (non-quote) He bought them off-the-shelf used, had Cossey repack them initially, and then a few months prior to the hijacking.

(I didn't know about time limits on repacking back then, i.e. that this must be done on a regular basis, so I didn't ask him how many times total they were repacked. BUT...I got the idea that Hayden had no plans to actually JUMP with one of them...even IF he had gotten into trouble in the air. He was really against that idea, and much more trusted getting a plane on the ground without actually abandoning it in the air. Just saying.)

I'm talking to him on the phone with the Detlor report sitting on the desk in front of me. Hayden doesn't know I'm looking at the report. Not at first. His answers to questions matched the report exactly. The only difference is Hayden said he did not simply 'give' the chutes to NWA. He said they were a rental to them, and they DID send him a check later, but this check didn't come close to covering what the chutes were actually worth. Years later, he got tired of just calling the FBI and asking for his Pioneer back. So...he finally pays a lawyer (I think he said $250) to send a letter to the FBI asking the chute be returned. It WAS returned. He donated it to the WA State History Museum. End of story. 

My opinion is that the Detlor report is accurate, and Hayden is telling the truth. Hayden also added that as far as he knew, none of the Cooper chutes actually BELONGED to Cossey, although he did pack three of them. I think the solution is as simple as it appears. Two chutes sent by Linn Emerick via the WA State Patrol to the airport, from Sky Sports. Two chutes sent by cab by Norman Hayden. Cooper gets them all. Cuts one open, uses another, leaves one behind for the museum later, dummy reserve tossed out the back. Look below one more time and compare FBI agent John Detlor's report, concise, organized, etc to that mish-mash mess submitted by the Reno FBI office....

Same folks who lost the most important piece of evidence in the case...the cigarette butts. Want to do a vote? I'm going with Hayden's testimony and the Detlor report. 

HaydenCosseyFBIExcerpt3.jpg

EDIT:  When I read off the report to Hayden at the end of the interview, he was pretty jazzed to be vindicated in his story. He asked if he could have a copy of the report shown above, to frame in his office. So I boosted the image to 300 DPI (The document shown above is actually a RE-TYPE of the original that I did myself to make it easier to present)  I sent him the finished doc by email, which was now suitable for printing. Prior to that, the doc was readable, but a bit raggedy-looking. But you could read every word.) 

That letter states that Hayden supplied two chutes to NorthWest Airlines, it does not state that they both went to Cooper.

That Detlor letter does not conflict with Cooper using one of Cossey's chutes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
20 minutes ago, mrshutter45 said:

I don't have a problem with searching anything. what I'm telling you is the card will land completely away from any other heavy objects thrown out the back. just seconds between tossing anything is a large distance between the two. then not knowing if the location is the same from 1971. factors like these probably stopped the FBI from searching the area. if Cooper tore the placard off in anger he would of tossed it on the stairs, especially if he was right handed. If the card actually drifted for miles the container wouldn't. it's hard to even figure out when and if he tossed the container out. it just wouldn't land near the placard. 

the container has two clips on it that attached to the D rings that were missing. ....think about that for a while. 

If he asked for the chutes and never intended on using them. they should still be there, just like the other chute he discarded. he tore one up and didn't toss that either. what would be the purpose of tossing one out of 3 remaining chutes? if he was as smart as McCoy. he would of tossed them all. leaving nothing behind. 

The card is not only a possible starting point for a search, it is a SYMBOL of Cooper. Come on...you don't really think we set all this up just to do a search, do you? Frankly, we give any search done at Castle Rock far less than one percent of a chance of actually finding anything. In fact, although the search itself will be fun, it's more of a sideline in some ways to the real idea here. 

Your next question might be...then WHY bother searching there? Well, it's like what that guy said when he was asked why he was going to climb Mt. Everest:  'Because it's there.'

The Castle Rock Search/Campout is more aimed as being a gathering of Cooper fans, both old and new, along with a few experts. We can only look around with those metal detectors during the day. It's also supposed to be fun, and to help promote Cooper with the general public. Interaction and camaraderie. After 48 years, you have to do these sorts of things to keep Cooper in the public eye. This isn't the first time AB of Seattle has done this sort of thing, either. We've sponsored three previous Cooper Campouts. The only differences between those campouts and this one, is that there is a day search involved, and we're going to do some media related to the Cooper case. The main object for everyone is to have FUN...and I can guarantee they certainly will. 

EDIT: Not to be picky there Shutter, but a couple of days ago you were all in favor of Eric going around a locked gate to the same area, and hiking in five or six miles each way to get pictures. Not a problem...however...don't you think the people involved in all of this in June should get equal time in the same area? I have sent two messages to Eric inviting him along on the campout. He is the guy allegedly organizing the next Cooper convention in Portland. He could not only get his pictures, but interact with the public, which might be a good thing for someone trying to get a bunch of people to show up for a convention on Black Friday shopping weekend. Just saying. No answer to our invites yet, but we're hoping. He could even do both, hiking in for pictures, and then driving to the site later in June. Some people that would probably attend his 2019 convention will be in on the campout, and public relations is always a good idea. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are missing the point all together. you never even thought of going to the location to see what the location looks like for the purpose of the cards movement over the years. that was the whole reason for the argument several days ago. not searching the area. I don't think Eric is going there to look for evidence. I've stated my reasons why I believe negative results would come with a search. I didn't realize any lines of fairness are involved with two different objectives? 

I believe Eric has expressed no interest in what you are doing several days ago. it's almost demanding from you. he's doing his own thing just as you are. try and accept that for what it is and not for something it isn't. It sounds pretty simple. Eric wants to get in and out of the area. when this whole thing erupted nobody was going to the location at all. it's not a competition. this shouldn't be a big deal. I don't follow why it has to come down to going on your trip? he's not promoting anything. he just wants pictures. he's going to be in the area so again, I don't follow why he should skip the opportunity and go on a trip weeks later? kind of like the mt. Everest thingy you mention. Because he's going to be there? 

I think the whole thing is blown out of proportion enough. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, my only purpose for going to the placard find spot relates to conducting research. I do not believe there is any evidence to be found there. My plan is to be there no longer than an hour.

A significant part of my overall DB Cooper investigation rests upon my belief that Cooper actually jumped and landed near Tena Bar. With that in mind, I believe the placard find may provide some clarity with respect to the flight path--albeit 41 years after it was found.

Essentially I'm conducting the analysis of the placard find that apparently the FBI didn't conduct. This involves a free-fall analysis of the placard that I asked R99 to conduct. It also involves analyzing the ability of the placard to migrate once on the forest floor. Therefore, I shall visit the spot shortly and begin my analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, EJU said:

Indeed, my only purpose for going to the placard find spot relates to conducting research. I do not believe there is any evidence to be found there. My plan is to be there no longer than an hour.

A significant part of my overall DB Cooper investigation rests upon my belief that Cooper actually jumped and landed near Tena Bar. With that in mind, I believe the placard find may provide some clarity with respect to the flight path--albeit 41 years after it was found.

Essentially I'm conducting the analysis of the placard find that apparently the FBI didn't conduct. This involves a free-fall analysis of the placard that I asked R99 to conduct. It also involves analyzing the ability of the placard to migrate once on the forest floor. Therefore, I shall visit the spot shortly and begin my analysis.

What about the wind, nobody knows what the wind was there at that time,, the FBI used Salem and Portland winds and averaged them between 8-9 PM. Using SSW.

They guessed, the winds nearby were ESE around 8 PM shifting to S to SSW.

Without knowing the actual winds at that spot, there is no valid Placard analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

More on the chutes...

The back chute Hayden got back from the FBI does not match the back chute found on the plane..  it doesn't really match the chute described by the FBI as Hayden's.. 

Bruce Smith wrote,,

https://themountainnewswa.net/2011/10/25/db-cooper-case-heats-up-again-with-controversy-over-parachutes/

"However, these documents proclaim Hayden as the owner of the two back chutes delivered to Cooper aboard Flight 305. Norman is also cited as the source of the information on the back parachutes as detailed in these documents, but Norman says that he never spoke to an FBI agent about the chutes. In fact, Norman was dismayed when I read him the FBI’s report.

"the rig was comparable to what is listed as chute #1 in the FBI “parachute” document.

 Nevertheless, there were some variations.

 First, the container looked old – WWII vintage – even though the manufacturing label said April 1957. Further, I didn’t see any “wear marks,” as suggested in the FBI docs.

 “This is a luxury chute?” Norman sighed when I read the FBI document to him, clearly refuting this aspect of the Bureau’s characterization of the “chute not-taken.”

 Compounding doubts further, the harness material looked fresh, as if it came from a more current rig. Plus, I didn’t see any special padding on them, which the FBI claims should be there. 

 Also, there was a rectangular foam pad, covered in grayish-blue nylon that looked like a little pillow and was located in the middle part of the harness, as if it was padding to make the rig more comfortable for an acrobatic pilot to wear. 

 The container was a Pioneer, type 226, as has been described in FBI reports. 

 I saw no “Steinthal” markings of any kind for the canopy, as FBI Cooper case agent Larry Carr has indicated on the “DropZone.” This begs the question of whether Carr or other FBI agents pulled the canopy out of the Pioneer container to fully inspect the parachute and thus learned it was a Steinthal. This suggests that there are more, yet-to-found FBI files on the parachutes. Or are the FBI documents a mish-mash of data on chutes, agent recollections, and bits and pieces of information from Cossey and Hayden? 

1. Civilian luxury type, tan soft cotton material outside, 26 foot while canopy inside. The parachute inside is a military parachute. The parachute has a foam pad cushion and a fray mark down the rib on the back from rubbing on metal.

 2. A military backpack parachute, standard olive drab green on outside, a 28 foot white canopy on inside. He (Norman Hayden) stated that this parachute also has a foam pad cushion."

 

The back chute found intact on the plane packing card had a S/N 60-9707 for a conical chute. National Guard claimed it was a 1960 Pioneer. The  packing card for the chute Hayden rec'd back has S/N 226 for a 26' Ripstop Conical chute. Both have the same packing date by Cossey of May 21/71. They are two different chutes. Two different packing cards. They must have mixed and matched the 2 Hayden and 2 Cossey chutes losing track of who owned which one.

 

 

chutefoundnorjak.jpeg.859dbfccd97d0e08fb0b13682b840265.jpeg

 

Cossey described his chutes.. a 26' and 28'.. with the same descent rate.

cosseychutesdescent.jpeg.03f901c60276241dba9c013dd1826b43.jpeg

Edited by FLYJACK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
23 hours ago, mrshutter45 said:

You are missing the point all together. you never even thought of going to the location to see what the location looks like for the purpose of the cards movement over the years. that was the whole reason for the argument several days ago. not searching the area. I don't think Eric is going there to look for evidence. I've stated my reasons why I believe negative results would come with a search. I didn't realize any lines of fairness are involved with two different objectives? 

I believe Eric has expressed no interest in what you are doing several days ago. it's almost demanding from you. he's doing his own thing just as you are. try and accept that for what it is and not for something it isn't. It sounds pretty simple. Eric wants to get in and out of the area. when this whole thing erupted nobody was going to the location at all. it's not a competition. this shouldn't be a big deal. I don't follow why it has to come down to going on your trip? he's not promoting anything. he just wants pictures. he's going to be in the area so again, I don't follow why he should skip the opportunity and go on a trip weeks later? kind of like the mt. Everest thingy you mention. Because he's going to be there? 

I think the whole thing is blown out of proportion enough. 

Actually, I only received Eric's answer to my invitation yesterday and he was very polite. I need to know Who's In and Who's Out because of supply considerations and other factors. I ask this of anybody who is attending our Cooper campouts. After three of them, I've gotten a bit better at it. When people are planning to meet at one central location from all over the state, (sometimes even Oregon as well), at the same time and on the same day, this is how we make sure no one gets lost or left behind. It gets complicated, and part of my job is to make sure we all coordinate. 

For example, Darren the Podcast Guy is driving from Idaho to Portland to pick up Nick B at the airport, and then they are driving north out of there to Castle Rock. Another guy is coming from Vancouver, and two more from Corvallis, Oregon. Others...some from Puyallup, other areas closer to Seattle. Without a confirmed list and a timetable, and the ability to contact people, it could easily turn into a big mess where some people sit stuck while waiting for others to show up. This is complicated further by the fact we have to get through a locked gate five miles from the site and only ONE person has the key. I'm considering asking the land use manager if we can just put a sign on the gate and leave it unlocked from Friday through Monday. This would simplify matters a lot. The manager is on vacation for the next two weeks, so I can't discuss this until they return. 

To make things even MORE tricky...I slept from 5PM this afternoon until just now, in prep for an early job today...and saw an inquiry from a reporter in Portland who *may* want to show up...and the gate is being locked behind us (required) after we enter the area. Oh, brother...:| Let me tell you, this stuff isn't easy and this trip is more complicated than the others. At least the other times people had a map to the actual camp spot and didn't have to get past a locked gate. On previous trips we had people who didn't make it to the spot in time, but finally found us using the map. I'm starting to think we should just limit it to the 16 people we have now and leave it at that. No worries, I will figure out a way somehow, so that no one gets left behind. 

It's hard to say whether Eric's plan will do a lot of good, mainly because the location the placard was found can only be narrowed down to about fifty feet in any direction, but it certainly couldn't hurt to go look. I don't believe anything about it will prove that Flight 305 took a sudden starboard turn for Tina Bar, but that's only my opinion. 

As far as finding any actual evidence from the hijacking, I think the chances of that are pretty remote, but I have discussed this before. It's more a meeting of fans and a few Cooper folk trying to have a bit of fun for the weekend. It's my feeling that SOMEONE should take a look around with metal detectors and a modest ground search, just in case. It's good Cooper public-relations stuff. And people usually have a lot of fun on these events. 

But....I can tell you this is the LAST time I'm going to organize a Cooper campout in a place OTHER than the US Forest Service. At least there you don't have to worry about locked gates, and that makes things a LOT easier. B|

EDIT: If anyone coming on this campout is reading this now, YES...we are bringing the new shower tent (hot water shower inside) with the flush toilet. I have assigned myself as the one responsible for making sure it works the entire three days. What the heck...another toilet to service. Not like I haven't done THAT before. (*laughs*) Brother, what I won't do for Cooper, that SOB. I will have to remember to bring the shovels. 


 

showertentNEW.jpg

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Shutter says in part (recently, on the internet):

Quote

'The same would go for a Northwest Orient employee. they were checked as well. especially the flight crews. not just the pilots…'

Wrong. In fact...DEAD wrong. The flight crew may have been checked, but show me a single instance where the Seattle FBI actually investigated ANYONE who worked for Northwest Airlines. Himmelsbach has said they never even considered doing it, and his reasons are flimsy at best, i.e. 'if you knew airline employees as I do, you would know they are head and shoulders above the standards of ordinary Americans...' In fact, Himmelsbach said that people occasionally suggested to the FBI that it could be an inside job, and he dismissed that as well, after being asked IF such an investigation had been done. It wasn't.

In 1971, more than 10,000 people worked for NWA. That would be a hell of an investigation on its own, and it was never done. You should stop spreading that statement quoted above, because it simply isn't true. They mostly focused on dropzones and the people who hang out there. Or, from tips that came in. They got a lot of tips. And even if they DID 'investigate' anyone from NWA, that investigation would have been limited to running their names on the NCIC and seeing if they had a criminal record. If no record was indicated, that person would have been dismissed immediately. I understand that you have an agenda regarding Christiansen, and that's okay. He can be a bit polarizing as a suspect. But when you start just making up stuff and trying to speak for the FBI on their investigation, that's where I have to make a modest protest. Himmelsbach is well-quoted as saying they didn't go there at all, and he was the case agent. 

You are inventing a myth that has no substance in fact. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

10,000 working in the Seattle and Washington area? this will be the third time I have posted this. the process was already taking place when the 302 was being typed. even though Cooper admitted NWO had nothing to do with the hijacking it didn't stop them from looking into the employee's. according to Cooper again. he went further to explain that 305 was at the right place and time. 

 

Ralph was in charge of Portland and not Seattle which was the main location of the investigation. Seattle had control. 

NW Background.JPG

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen that document. Reviewing an employee's records is one thing. I don't imagine too many flight crew for NWA had criminal records, because if they did, they wouldn't have been working as a flight crew member for NWA. If any employees for NWA had a criminal record, yes...they would have been investigated. 

Name just ONE employee who became a suspect. Just one. Everyone understands that you have a bias, and yes...an agenda...on Christiansen. FYI:  Christiansen didn't have a criminal record. Porteous checked him out. Maybe that's why the FBI never came to his door for a simple Q and A. 

My personal view is that Cooper probably didn't have a criminal record, and perhaps that is some of the reason his identity was never discovered, whether he was Christiansen or not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mrshutter45 said:

You can't speak for the FBI on what they did or didn't do. you have been saying they didn't check for years. that's dead wrong. other 302's mention this as well. it's not the only 302 about this. 

Your 302 says they looked at employee records. Doesn't say a thing about doing active investigations on individual employees, or focusing on any particular one as a suspect. You have used that document to assert the FBI did on-the-ground, door-to-door, question-the-friends-and-neighbors of NWA employees, and Himmelsbach plainly said they did not, and in fact, dismisses the possibility it was an inside job. The FBI may have reviewed employee records, but without a red flag popping up on one of them, it would go nowhere. 

Name a single NWA employee who became a suspect because of this employee record check. You are confusing employee records and applications with actual ground investigations of suspects. Not a single instance of an NWA employee being investigated for the hijacking appears anywhere in the records. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about it Robert. why would they decide against looking into the employee's. that's like not looking into family members after one of them were murdered. they chased leads from people telling them they looked like the sketch but once again fail to look into the airline that was hijacked? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the 302's are not to be taken as exact on what is being written. they are notes of current things surrounding the case. they don't go into detail on a lot of things. there are 3 sets of 302's. each differ slightly. some have more than others. we don't have the full story on anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mrshutter45 said:

Think about it Robert. why would they decide against looking into the employee's. that's like not looking into family members after one of them were murdered. they chased leads from people telling them they looked like the sketch but once again fail to look into the airline that was hijacked? 

Well...one reason might be because hijackings were usually done by people NOT associated with the airline being hijacked. The Minneapolis office says they reviewed employee records. Okay, fine. Maybe they did. Did it take them anywhere? Did anyone pop out as a possible suspect? Obviously, no because this would have been big news. Unless an employee's app showed he admitted to having a criminal conviction, or had a history of bitching about the airline he worked for, this would go nowhere. 

It's one of the reasons I believe Cooper did not have a criminal record. If he had, chances are much better he would have been caught by now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the time being. you might want to adjust the map you have showing the search area's and which way you believe you are facing on the map. it's wrong. it's not northwest. west is to the left of your photo. you are searching west of the flight path. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
9 minutes ago, mrshutter45 said:

For the time being. you might want to adjust the map you have showing the search area's and which way you believe you are facing on the map. it's wrong. it's not northwest. west is to the left of your photo. you are searching west of the flight path. 

The photos are to show the general location of the campout, and the two suggested camping spots. The scale is fairly small in the photo below. We're going to concentrate the searches mostly in the spots that have not been recently logged. Looks like miles, but actually only about a thousand feet between Campsite 1 and 2. EDIT:  Campsite 2 is more likely. It's bigger and has more parking. 

CardGeneral2.jpg

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

I'm just telling you the direction is not accurate and the location of the search is further west of the placard. that alone is away from the known flight path. you will be looking in area's where the wind was against putting the chute or briefcase in that location. I'm guessing you believe the objects went against the wind and that's why you are looking there? you seem to have the pulse of the FBI. do you think the map was like yours. inaccurate? 

Edited by mrshutter45

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For years you have blasted R99 about his flight path being wrong and decided to look in area's suggesting the path was further west. the flight path is on the right side of the placard location in your photo. you are looking on the left side of the placard. that is west. wouldn't you rather see this now instead of after the trip is over? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Do you see 'Campsite 2' area? That is maybe sixty feet in diameter. You can walk back up the road and over to Campsite 1 in just a few minutes. This is not a picture of an area encompassing square miles, but a pretty close blowup. And we will refine the search areas after we get onsite. It will be discussed Friday afternoon and into the evening among everybody after we set up camp. Search doesn't begin until Saturday morning. 

It will be easier to do all this after we take a look at the area in person. I know what I'm doing to a certain extent, but input will come from other participants when we get there, no doubt. But first we have to get there and check out the terrain. None of us have actually been there before. 

Nothing has been 100% established on the search areas, because my suggestions are based on pictures from space satellites. We will probably go out a quarter mile in all directions, maybe a bit more, from the central point starting from the placard location. That's known within fifty feet. To save time, we may concentrate on areas not recently logged. 

You take what you have, you do the best you can. I doubt we will find anything, but everyone will have fun trying, that is pretty much guaranteed. B|

EDIT: Yes, it's true I don't agree with R99's assessment that Flight 305 was actually six or more miles WEST of the official flight path. Even the location of the placard supports this view to an extent. That would be an easy way to explain the Tina Bar money, of course. But the answer to that money is most likely a bit more complicated than just moving the airliner a few miles. I have pointed out that if ATC, or even SAGE radar was SO inaccurate...airliners would be crashing into each other all the time. We won't even count the two military jets shadowing the flight. They knew where it was at all times, but had to keep doing big 'S' turns because 305 is so slow. Anyone can use a flight simulator program to magically change the facts, but that doesn't mean those efforts result in actual facts. 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)

Saw this posted by EU:

Quote

'My point about the parachute drift is not complicated. That is to say, if it was calculated that Cooper would drift 4NM to the NE if he deployed immediately...'

Four nautical miles from a maximum 10,000 foot exit? Assuming Cooper pulled and deployed within a thousand feet of exit, this leaves him about 500 seconds max to cover four miles at 18 feet a second or so of drop. (Full deployment at 9,000 feet divided by 18 feet a second drop comes to roughly 500 seconds, and the area Cooper landed is NOT at sea level.) That is approximately 50 mph sideways in drift. Must have been a hell of a storm, and he would have undoubtedly been killed. I'm a definite whuffo, but even I figured that out by crunching some numbers. 

EDIT: Expert parachutist '377' has been quoted saying drop from 10K would result in no more than a mile of drift in any direction before Cooper reached the ground. Just saying. 

(Have to get to the job today, but I will check in this evening. Now I have a senior high school kid with metal detectors who wants to show for the search. From Vancouver. He was approved, although I had to speak to his parents. It's nice to have some young people involved in such an old case, I have to admit.)

The bottom line is that we're going to look, despite the naysayers, and everyone will have a lot of fun. This time we are sparing no expense or effort to make sure this happens, although our chances of finding any evidence are admittedly small. No one seems to care about that particularly. It's a meeting of minds, a meeting of fans, and made for people to enjoy themselves. Those are the main things here. You can be there, or you can be square, although it's okay to be square as well. :) Video posted again in case some people missed it. 

 

Edited by RobertMBlevins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
10 10