DB Cooper

[Slim King 31]

On 3/11/2023 at 7:57 PM, Math of Insects said:

Yes, I know. Everyone knows.*

 

 

*Except the guy who runs the FB group, who was pushing the idea that they are the same thing as rubber bands and always have been and always will be, and when someone says "bank straps," they are really saying "rubber bands."

Even I know that!!!!!! My wife is a banker .... And bankers don't have the time to check serial numbers now or then. They work for the bank and not the FBI.

[georger 106]

8 hours ago, olemisscub said:

sadly, yes

 

 

 

The person pictured is Wayne Walker. aka Sluggo.

[georger 106]

I had a former Portland Agent check the Washougal pages out - here are his comments:

          OK, here’s what I get from the attached documents:

          They are all teletypes – because they require immediate investigation on a priority matter. Notice that they are informational, but are not detailed information or direct quotes from the source, so they are not 302’s. A 302 will have the form number on it, with a space at the bottom that will have the initials of the person who typed it, and the Agent who dictated it. Depending on the Agent, many of us would identify ourselves in the first paragraph so that the reader, (US Atty, court etc.) would know who was writing it. A 302 will only pertain to information observed by the Agent, or the results of an interview. That restriction makes them suitable to be introduced into court as evidence. They will not contain directions or leads for another office/location. A cover letter, similar to the teletypes would be sent with the 302.

          The first teletype (attachment) is from Portland to Seattle and to Cleveland. It’s basic purpose is to find out who these CB guys are. So Seattle is directed to go to the sawmill at Auburn and find out who is bringing in 20 loads from the Washougal area. Cleveland is directed to contact the owner of the radio call letters who lives in Ohio.

          Cleveland responds back by teletype and basically says the CB guy doesn’t know what the hell they are talking about because he hasn’t even been to Montana since the distant past. One must conclude that the original source overheard the call letters incorrectly, or that the person being overheard fraudulently used the letters of someone else to avoid paying the license fee.

          Your attachments didn’t contain the results or reply from Seattle. If Seattle obtained additional information, they would write another message to the Agents serving Washougal ( The Vancouver WA resident agency), and direct them to interview the log truck driver. Portland would probably not even be given a copy of that communication unless there was more required in Portland. The way the communication system was set up, they tried to avoid excess paper and communications to file. If it didn’t concern an outside office or require additional work there, they weren’t included.

          This is typical of the frustrating dead ends, and ultimately useless  effort that goes in to major investigations. You open a can of worms, and what crawls out isn’t even worms. So you have to clear the air of the static and focus only on your original intent or you get lost and overwhelmed with irrelevant information. I’m confident that issue was resolved, but the result would most likely be confined to the Seattle Office, possibly with copies to FBIHQ in Wash D.C.

          By the way, the initials at the bottom of the page of the T Types would be the supervisor who signed out the teletype. At that time, all priority matters, because they were suppose to require the receiving agents to drop everything and cover the lead immediately, had to be approved by a squad supervisor. I hope this clears up some of the questions.

          Regards,

 

Edited March 13 by georger

[FLYJACK 489]

We assume that because something was in the FBI files and looked at by the FBI that is was resolved..

It is a good assumption but not always accurate... the FBI didn't realize they had both of Hayden's back chute packing cards and were unable to actually read the cards properly mixing up the descriptors for the data..

[georger 106]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

We assume that because something was in the FBI files and looked at by the FBI that is was resolved..

It is a good assumption but not always accurate... the FBI didn't realize they had both of Hayden's back chute packing cards and were unable to actually read the cards properly mixing up the descriptors for the data..

In the above, a discussion about Cooper $20 dollar bills being found (in the Washougal!) is being discussed openly over CB radio - with a potential wide CB audience ! A full year before Cooper money is found at Tina Bar in February 1980. Somebody in the Portland office was made aware and informed the Seattle office who investigated ?  Either the alleged conversations over CB radio took place as reported, or they didn't ! Why would anybody be talking about this in April 1979?  Why would the subject even come up by whom? It's one helluva a coincidence if nothing else. Is Himmelsbach the author of this 'coincidence' ?    

Were the Ingrams cb'ers? People at Wilhelm trucking in Portland were. Cb radio in those days was a network with some broadcasting on 11 meters at 1500 watts with stacked yagi arrays. It was common for people broadcast internationally on 11 meters, despite FCC restrictions. Cooper himself said his bomb was electronic and might be set off by radio transmissions... 'just so you are aware'! CB radio was everywhere with a very wide daily audience. Anyone using CB radio knew that. An audience was all but guaranteed.  

The venerable Tempo-One.

Edited March 14 by georger

[olemisscub 195]

On 3/14/2023 at 12:10 PM, FLYJACK said:

We assume that because something was in the FBI files and looked at by the FBI that is was resolved..

It is a good assumption but not always accurate... the FBI didn't realize they had both of Hayden's back chute packing cards and were unable to actually read the cards properly mixing up the descriptors for the data..

There are plenty of baffling things in the Cooper case, but this packing cards thing is near the top. 

We've got the Air Force sergeant identifying it by the July 1960 card and saying it's 24 foot. He apparently finds this card in "a pocket on this parachute", which sounds like the pocket where those cards go on the NB-6.

Then you've got the official description from evidence claiming that it is the 1957 26 footer. Following that you have the "integral part" line. So which one did Hayden get back that is in the museum? The 1960 24 footer or the 1957 26 footer?

[FLYJACK 489]

58 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

There are plenty of baffling things in the Cooper case, but this packing cards thing is near the top. 

We've got the Air Force sergeant identifying it by the July 1960 card and saying it's 24 foot. He apparently finds this card in "a pocket on this parachute", which sounds like the pocket where those cards go on the NB-6.

Then you've got the official description from evidence claiming that it is the 1957 26 footer. Following that you have the "integral part" line. So which one did Hayden get back that is in the museum? The 1960 24 footer or the 1957 26 footer?

Hayden got back the 26 ft SN 226 Sept 1957 back chute in 1975,,, now at the museum

The July 1960 SN 60-9707 card is for Hayden's other back chute found on the plane in the pocket of chute SN 226 and most certainly belongs to the chute Cooper used..

So, Cooper chose the newer chute and Cossey's description was false..

Edited March 15 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 28]

48 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Hayden got back the 26 ft SN 226 Sept 1957 back chute in 1975,,, now at the museum

The July 1960 SN 60-9707 card is for Hayden's other back chute found on the plane in the pocket of chute SN 226 and most certainly belongs to the chute Cooper used..

So, Cooper chose the newer chute and Cossey's description was false..

As has previously been explained here a number of times, the parachute in the WSHM is NOT a 26-foot conical parachute. It does NOT have a single component that can be identified as being a part of a 26-foot conical rig.

Hayden has stated that his parachutes were similar or identical.  The WSHM parachute appears to have been assembled from a grab bag of military surplus parachute components that were never part of one particular rig.

If you want to see what a 26-foot conical parachute looks like, go to Sluggo's site on Shutter's web page and take a look at his pictures of one.  Sluggo's pictures are identical to a genuine 26-foot conical parachute that I owned in 1971 just a few months before the hijacking.

Basically, everything that Cossey claimed about the parachutes involved in the hijacking is nonsense.

[FLYJACK 489]

4 hours ago, Robert99 said:

As has previously been explained here a number of times, the parachute in the WSHM is NOT a 26-foot conical parachute. It does NOT have a single component that can be identified as being a part of a 26-foot conical rig.

Hayden has stated that his parachutes were similar or identical.  The WSHM parachute appears to have been assembled from a grab bag of military surplus parachute components that were never part of one particular rig.

If you want to see what a 26-foot conical parachute looks like, go to Sluggo's site on Shutter's web page and take a look at his pictures of one.  Sluggo's pictures are identical to a genuine 26-foot conical parachute that I owned in 1971 just a few months before the hijacking.

Basically, everything that Cossey claimed about the parachutes involved in the hijacking is nonsense.

Wrong,,

The chute is a 26' according to its packing card.. it was also repacked after Hayden got it back.

The container is a Pioneer P2-B-24...  So, the container is a 24'

Edited March 16 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 28]

8 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Wrong,,

The chute is a 26' according to its packing card.. it was also repacked after Hayden got it back.

The container is a Pioneer P2-B-24...  So, the container is a 24'

Flyjack, you are wrong!  Have you ever seen a 26-foot conical parachute?  I have owned one, used it in flight, and seen ever stitch in it.

There are several things unique about the 26-foot conical parachute rig.  Do you know what they are?

The canopy in the WSHM parachute is a standard 28-foot canopy.  There is nothing unique about that rig.

Edited March 16 by Robert99

[dudeman17 226]

The designation of " 26' " or " 24' " refers to the size of the canopy inside the container. People casually use the term 'parachute' to refer to either the canopy, the container, or the whole rig. In the "P2-B-24" designation for the container, the '24' might refer to the size of canopy it's intended for, it might not. Usually a few sizes of canopy will fit into a particular container. It's rigger's discretion of what canopy can be put into a container as long as it fits, unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer.

 

8 hours ago, Robert99 said:

As has previously been explained here a number of times, the parachute in the WSHM is NOT a 26-foot conical parachute. It does NOT have a single component that can be identified as being a part of a 26-foot conical rig.

When you have said this before, weren't you referring to the NB-6/8 containers, not the 26' canopy?

 

8 hours ago, Robert99 said:

The WSHM parachute appears to have been assembled from a grab bag of military surplus parachute components that were never part of one particular rig.

Not necessarily. It does not appear to be a complete 'Frankenstein rig'. It's simply an older container that has had a newer harness put on at some point, not an unusual repair. Whatever canopy is in it is whatever it is.

 

10 hours ago, olemisscub said:

So which one did Hayden get back that is in the museum?

Some time ago Shutter was going to look into this. I suggested he contact Skydive Kapowsin, the major DZ in that area, to find a suitable rigger. He ended up in contact with Jeff Farrington, the DZ owner, whose whole family are jumpers. It was Jeff and his son Andy who did the re-creation jump in that last History Channel(?) program that Bruce was in. The pandemic hit and the museum was closed for a while. Shutter got otherwise occupied. Bruce was going to take that over, but he's since retired from the case. If someone wanted to follow that up, I'd suggest contact the museum and Jeff at Kapowsin, and see if they're still willing to make that happen. Jeff has been around a long time, and has the credentials, ratings, and experience that the museum would want for someone to handle that rig.

[dudeman17 226]

4 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

There are several things unique about the 26-foot conical parachute rig.

Again, '26' conical' and '28' canopy' are the canopies themselves, not the container. As with 377, my first reserve ride was a 26' conical, mine deployed out of a Wonderhog container.

[FLYJACK 489]

1 hour ago, Robert99 said:

Flyjack, you are wrong!  Have you ever seen a 26-foot conical parachute?  I have owned one, used it in flight, and seen ever stitch in it.

There are several things unique about the 26-foot conical parachute rig.  Do you know what they are?

The canopy in the WSHM parachute is a standard 28-foot canopy.  There is nothing unique about that rig.

No, I am not...

What I said is 100% accurate.

The P2-B-24 container was made in the early 40's and originally came with a silk chute.

Edited March 16 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 195]

When people these days try to shove photos in front of the Stews for identification, they need to keep this 302 from April 1976 in mind:

[FLYJACK 489]

24 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

When people these days try to shove photos in front of the Stews for identification, they need to keep this 302 from April 1976 in mind:

Yes, there is another document from 1976 in which the FBI admit the witnesses and evidence is not good enough and that only the co-operation of "Cooper" could bring a prosecution..

The only thing that has changed since 1976 is DNA tech...

[Robert99 28]

13 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

The designation of " 26' " or " 24' " refers to the size of the canopy inside the container. People casually use the term 'parachute' to refer to either the canopy, the container, or the whole rig. In the "P2-B-24" designation for the container, the '24' might refer to the size of canopy it's intended for, it might not. Usually a few sizes of canopy will fit into a particular container. It's rigger's discretion of what canopy can be put into a container as long as it fits, unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer.

 

When you have said this before, weren't you referring to the NB-6/8 containers, not the 26' canopy?

 

Not necessarily. It does not appear to be a complete 'Frankenstein rig'. It's simply an older container that has had a newer harness put on at some point, not an unusual repair. Whatever canopy is in it is whatever it is.

 

Some time ago Shutter was going to look into this. I suggested he contact Skydive Kapowsin, the major DZ in that area, to find a suitable rigger. He ended up in contact with Jeff Farrington, the DZ owner, whose whole family are jumpers. It was Jeff and his son Andy who did the re-creation jump in that last History Channel(?) program that Bruce was in. The pandemic hit and the museum was closed for a while. Shutter got otherwise occupied. Bruce was going to take that over, but he's since retired from the case. If someone wanted to follow that up, I'd suggest contact the museum and Jeff at Kapowsin, and see if they're still willing to make that happen. Jeff has been around a long time, and has the credentials, ratings, and experience that the museum would want for someone to handle that rig.

Last thing first.  If anyone lives in the Seattle area and is willing to contact Jeff Farrington and the WSHM to try to arrange for a detailed inspection of the Hayden parachute, including opening the container and inspecting and photographing the canopy and risers plus the overall rig, I will happily reimburse their expenses (as long as they stay in the lower three digits before the decimal point).

It should be noted that once the Cossey packing seal has been broken, it is highly unlikely that any rigger is going to put his own seal on a 50+ year old parachute even if he does repack it.  Meaning that the Hayden parachute is a museum piece and is going to stay that way.

My definition of an NB-6 parachute rig is as shown in the pictures of one that is in Sluggo's work which can now be accessed through Shutter's site.  The NB-6, with a 26-foot conical canopy, that I owned in 1971 appears identical to Sluggo's NB-6.  And I inspected every stitch on the NB-6 rig that I owned.

My only reserve ride was on a 24-foot twill canopy.  But that is another long story.

Anyone willing to work together to get the Hayden parachute inspected should feel free to send me a PM.

[FLYJACK 489]

56 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

Last thing first.  If anyone lives in the Seattle area and is willing to contact Jeff Farrington and the WSHM to try to arrange for a detailed inspection of the Hayden parachute, including opening the container and inspecting and photographing the canopy and risers plus the overall rig, I will happily reimburse their expenses (as long as they stay in the lower three digits before the decimal point).

It should be noted that once the Cossey packing seal has been broken, it is highly unlikely that any rigger is going to put his own seal on a 50+ year old parachute even if he does repack it.  Meaning that the Hayden parachute is a museum piece and is going to stay that way.

My definition of an NB-6 parachute rig is as shown in the pictures of one that is in Sluggo's work which can now be accessed through Shutter's site.  The NB-6, with a 26-foot conical canopy, that I owned in 1971 appears identical to Sluggo's NB-6.  And I inspected every stitch on the NB-6 rig that I owned.

My only reserve ride was on a 24-foot twill canopy.  But that is another long story.

Anyone willing to work together to get the Hayden parachute inspected should feel free to send me a PM.

The Hayden Pioneer chute, the one left on the plane returned to him was repacked twice after it was returned to Hayden..  There is no Cossey seal on it..

Cossey originally packed and filled out the card 26' Ripstop Conical SN 226 Sept. 1957.. the subsequent rigger never changed anything on the card.

It is not an NB6/8, it is a P2-B-24 from the early 40's

Edited March 16 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 28]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

The Hayden Pioneer chute, the one left on the plane returned to him was repacked twice after it was returned to Hayden..  There is no Cossey seal on it..

Cossey originally packed and filled out the card 26' Ripstop Conical SN 226 Sept. 1957.. the subsequent rigger never changed anything on the card.

It is not an NB6/8, it is a P2-B-24 from the early 40's

My point is that whatever seal is on the Hayden parachute is not going to be replaced by another rigger's seal regardless of what packing card goes with the parachute.

I doubt very much that the Hayden parachute is from the early 1940s.  If so, it would have been about 30 years old in 1971.  There was plenty of unused surplus military parachute equipment available post WW2 so that an essentially new (or at least unused) rig could be assembled by a rigger for a dirt-cheap price.  Would you believe $40 or so?  And I suspect that is what Cossey did with the Hayden rigs.   

[FLYJACK 489]

30 minutes ago, Robert99 said:

My point is that whatever seal is on the Hayden parachute is not going to be replaced by another rigger's seal regardless of what packing card goes with the parachute.

I doubt very much that the Hayden parachute is from the early 1940s.  If so, it would have been about 30 years old in 1971.  There was plenty of unused surplus military parachute equipment available post WW2 so that an essentially new (or at least unused) rig could be assembled by a rigger for a dirt-cheap price.  Would you believe $40 or so?  And I suspect that is what Cossey did with the Hayden rigs.   

That container is a Pioneer P2-B-24 from the early 40's.. the parachute was Sept 1957. The harness was April 1957.

Remember, it was an emergency bailout rig required to meet regulations...  Hayden never intended to use them.

But that rig at the museum is largely irrelevant.. the key take away is that the FBI had both of Hayden's back chute packing cards and didn't realize it.. the back chute Cooper used didn't match Cossey's description and they were looking for the wrong chute,, it may have actually been found but rejected.

Edited March 16 by FLYJACK

[SeventyWonderful 2]

On 3/12/2023 at 1:53 PM, olemisscub said:

Indeed. There's a 302 where Bill requests that they make one. Would be nice to see what Cooper's nose profile might have been and what type of turkey gobble he was remembering. 

Somebody on Reddit uploaded AI animations for Composite A and Composite B where you can kind of see what his profile looked like, at least as far as the drawings go.

[olemisscub 195]

On 3/4/2023 at 11:22 AM, CooperNWO305 said:

Which stewardess was living in Missouri in 1989? I’m assuming Alice. One from Eugene, OR is mentioned later on. This is from 1989, so they were still showing photos then. 

Confirmed that this was Flo living in Missouri. Her last name was Wheeler by that point. The mention of Arkansas is a clue but the clincher is the mention of Coffelt because Flo is the one who the Coffelt camp claimed ID'd him as Cooper. 

 

[dudeman17 226]

8 hours ago, Robert99 said:

it is highly unlikely that any rigger is going to put his own seal on a 50+ year old parachute even if he does repack it.  Meaning that the Hayden parachute is a museum piece and is going to stay that way.

Exactly. No one is going to put a seal on it as airworthy and usable. But he could unpack it, photograph it, and confirm that it is what it is suspected to be. And he could repack it so that returns to a displayable condition.

 

5 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

But that rig at the museum is largely irrelevant..

True, but it's still a tangible curiosity.

 

6 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Remember, it was an emergency bailout rig required to meet regulations...  Hayden never intended to use them.

As I once said to Blevins, if his plane was on fire and losing a wing, I bet he'd be willing to change his mind. Ha!

[georger 106]

On 3/16/2023 at 12:57 PM, Robert99 said:

Last thing first.  If anyone lives in the Seattle area and is willing to contact Jeff Farrington and the WSHM to try to arrange for a detailed inspection of the Hayden parachute, including opening the container and inspecting and photographing the canopy and risers plus the overall rig, I will happily reimburse their expenses (as long as they stay in the lower three digits before the decimal point).

It should be noted that once the Cossey packing seal has been broken, it is highly unlikely that any rigger is going to put his own seal on a 50+ year old parachute even if he does repack it.  Meaning that the Hayden parachute is a museum piece and is going to stay that way.

My definition of an NB-6 parachute rig is as shown in the pictures of one that is in Sluggo's work which can now be accessed through Shutter's site.  The NB-6, with a 26-foot conical canopy, that I owned in 1971 appears identical to Sluggo's NB-6.  And I inspected every stitch on the NB-6 rig that I owned.

My only reserve ride was on a 24-foot twill canopy.  But that is another long story.

Anyone willing to work together to get the Hayden parachute inspected should feel free to send me a PM.

WSHM could have done this years ago but demurred for some reason, just as they demurred from taking a position in the West path debate. Likewise they demurred from certifying your claim of redactions. WSHM has always followed a non-controversial middle road when it comes to their Cooper expertise. They apparently favor claiming experetise but do not wish to test anything, which at a blush is kind of 'cheesy' ! Their interests stop at the river's edge lest they get their feet wet... which is funny. Better to let someone else take the heat!   And you certainly have done that for them even though you are not a spokesman for WSHM, you have spoken for them and made claims for them "many many many" times!

Maybe you and WSHM need to counsel and decide who is what and which and speaking for ........ whom and for whatever ? It has become an open issue and very humerous between you and WSHM !

Are you on WSHM's Board of Directors? Yes or No ? Do you speak for WSHM? Someone make up their minds!

Edited March 17 by georger

[FLYJACK 489]

17 hours ago, dudeman17 said:

True, but it's still a tangible curiosity.

I meant the parachute size or type is irrelevant to advancing the case.

Now, having it checked by a rigger is a big mistake. DO NOT DO IT.

Cooper pulled the card from the pocket and replaced the other card.. His DNA may be on the card or the edges of the pocket..

What should be done is the back chute card and pocket area is sampled for DNA... of course there are other people who have touched those areas. Cossey, Hayden, Reno chute inspector, rigger who repacked it and maybe FBI agents..  Still, probably fewer than the tie and you don't need approval of the FBI.. just the museum.

 

Edited March 17 by FLYJACK

[Robert99 28]

50 minutes ago, georger said:

WSHM could have done this years ago but demurred for some reason, just as they demurred from taking a position in the West path debate. Likewise they demurred from certifying your claim of redactions. WSHM has always followed a non-controversial middle road when it comes to their Cooper expertise. They apparently favor claiming experetise but do not wish to test anything, which at a blush is kind of 'cheesy' ! Their interests stop at the river's edge lest they get their feet wet... which is funny. Better to let someone else take the heat!   And you certainly have done that for them even though you are not a spokesman for WSHM, you have spoken for them and made claims for them "many many many" times!

Maybe you and WSHM need to counsel and decide who is what and which and speaking for ........ whom and for whatever ? It has become an open issue and very humerous between you and WSHM !

Are you on WSHM's Board of Directors? Yes or No ? Do you speak for WSHM? Someone make up their minds!

Georger, this is just more of your silliness.  I have never made a claim about WSHM that didn't originate with them.  I am me and they are them.  Or something like that.

On the Western Flight Path "debate", the WFP was developed in 2009 and I really don't remember when I heard of the WSHM but it was probably several years after that.

And I probably have several decades more experience in determining flight paths and redactions than anyone at WSHM.  If I had the unredacted radio transcripts, I would not need any further inputs from the USAF, FBI, or anyone else.

Last week was the 14th anniversary of my logging on to DropZone.  And the late Sluggo was the one who told me where to find it.