DB Cooper

[olemisscub 466]

28 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Nope,,

You have distorted what Hayden said and meant creating a false premise..

Hayden was shown the description of the chutes in the files that was attributed to him.. he responded saying he didn't agree with the descriptions and didn't talk to the FBI.. Essentially, he meant that description did not come from him.. he never meant that he never ever talked to the FBI because he also relayed the story about an FBI agent rudely giving him his chute back..  So, clearly he knew he had talked to the FBI later.. He was referring to the initial contact and that is documented to have been with Harrison and Halsted NOT the FBI.

The term "burp sack" is a throwup bag..  Pilots use it, Cossey was also a pilot.

My contention is that the initial description came from Cossey mixed with a description from somebody who saw the chutes before they went on the plane. aka the correct colour..

 

All of this Matrix-style bending over you are doing trying to explain Cossey saying one color and some other guy saying another color and yada yada can EASILY be explained when you realize that Hayden was WRONG when he was describing an event to Bruce Smith that occurred FORTY YEARS earlier.

Again, we have the freaking FBI Files. Either they are legit or they are not. And if you don't think they are legit then I don't know why you invest so much time in the FBI Files otherwise. The file says they spoke to HAYDEN (not Halstad, not Cossey, not Mickey Mouse, not John the Baptist) at 2:50 AM. You think some FBI agent playing with his dick just wrote that down for the sure hell of it?? "Ya know, I'm just gonna write some random shit down so a couple losers 50 years later can debate it on a message board."

That document very CLEARLY states that they spoke to Hayden. Then we have Hayden speaking to the FBI MULTIPLE times (something he denied). So why are you STILL putting faith in what Hayden's memory is FORTY years after the fact instead of just taking the document at false value? I honest to God cannot comprehend this. Dude, this isn't that complicated. 

" Further, Norman emphatically declares that he never spoke directly to the FBI during the parachute delivery nor subsequent investigation, yet, the Bureau’s document claims that their detailed parachute information comes from Norman."

Hayden implies that the only FBI he ever dealt with was the guy who physically returned the chute to him. That is incorrect.

Hayden AND Cossey gave approximate descriptions of the same chute. For whatever reason they were BOTH mistaken on the canopy size. THAT is the only mystery we have about the parachutes at this point. You are making this far, far more complicated than it needs to be. 

[FLYJACK 654]

9 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

lol what? A parachute has throw up bags on the back of it? What are you talking about?

Throw "burp sack" into google. There is no such thing as you are describing. 

https://www.google.com/search?q="burp+sack"&oq="burp+sack"&aqs=chrome..69i57.3639j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

I did find the term used, it is a barf bag.. 

[olemisscub 466]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

I did find the term used, it is a barf bag.. 

show me some evidence of that and also explain to me why you think anyone would have TWO barf bags on their parachutes?? Ridiculous. 

Also, you think Cossey would claim or remember five months later that these random parachutes he packed had barf bags?

You think Cossey would remember FIVE MONTHS LATER that the museum chute had a fray down the back from metal? 

No way. 

Edited July 30, 2023 by olemisscub

[olemisscub 466]

9 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

Bottom line is Cossey's description is completely incompatible with the packing card found.

 

"completely incompatible?" 

How? You can easily put a 24 foot into an NB-6. 

[FLYJACK 654]

4 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

show me some evidence of that and also explain to me why you think anyone would have TWO barf bags on their parachutes?? Ridiculous. 

Also, you think Cossey would claim or remember five months later that these random parachutes he packed had barf bags?

You think Cossey would remember FIVE MONTHS LATER that the museum chute had a fray down the back from metal? 

No way. 

They are barf bags,, a pilot would have them. These are emergency bailout rigs for PILOTS. Barf bags are stuffed in the chute for quick access. Cossey was also a PILOT.

 

 

 

[olemisscub 466]

1 minute ago, FLYJACK said:

They are barf bags,, a pilot would have them. These are emergency bailout rigs for PILOTS. Barf bags are stuffed in the chute for quick access. Cossey was also a PILOT.

 

Cool story. Now explain to me how Earl Cossey remembers the fray down the back of a random parachute that he packed five months earlier. 

[olemisscub 466]

5 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Cossey was also a PILOT.

 

You know who else was a PILOT? The guy the FBI said they got the description from at 2:50 AM. 

[FLYJACK 654]

3 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

"completely incompatible?" 

How? You can easily put a 24 foot into an NB-6. 

Look, you have this so screwed up..

Cossey claimed it was a modified NB6, calling it an NB8 at times with a 28' chute..

You want to explain how a 24' chute gets into a modified NB6/8..

Cossey is a documented liar... the only NB6/8 source is Cossey.

 

But there are other problems..

the container colour,

the harness colour,

the chute type (conical on card vs flat circular by Cossey) these are not the same

Steinthal, on the card not mentioned by Cossey

the size, 24' on card 

container type NB6 (26' not 24') Cossey claimed he modified it to an NB8 for a 28'

and it is also a Pioneer, not mentioned by Cossey in files. The chute left in the plane was referred to as the Pioneer. An NB6 can be a Pioneer but it is telling that it is never mentioned in the files. If it was a "Pioneer NB6", Cossey would have said so. He only called it an NB6 or NB8..

 

 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

5 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Cool story. Now explain to me how Earl Cossey remembers the fray down the back of a random parachute that he packed five months earlier. 

That could have come from somebody who saw the chute before it went on the plane.

It doesn't make any difference... even if it came from Hayden.. Cossey's description is completely incompatible.

[olemisscub 466]

Yes, Cossey is a known liar, etc. So don't listen to Cossey's description. Listen to NORMAN HAYDEN'S description. You know, the guy who literally had them in his possession the DAY of the hijacking. Cossey is remembering a random parachute he packed from five months earlier. Who cares what he has to say about it. He's irrelevant. 

The only thing inconsistent with the initial description that HAYDEN gave and the packing card is the canopy size. That's it. 

[FLYJACK 654]

5 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Yes, Cossey is a known liar, etc. So don't listen to Cossey's description. Listen to NORMAN HAYDEN'S description. You know, the guy who literally had them in his possession the DAY of the hijacking. Cossey is remembering a random parachute he packed from five months earlier. Who cares what he has to say about it. He's irrelevant. 

The only thing inconsistent with the initial description that HAYDEN gave and the packing card is the canopy size. That's it. 

You are confused.

My argument is that Cossey was describing his chute he thought was taken from Issaquah, not Hayden's..

I already said that the size is the only discrepancy for the initial description.

Cossey's documented descriptions are completely incompatible with the card..

You seem to still claim Cossey was describing Hayden's chute from memory..   No way. He was describing his own.

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

2 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

You are confused.

My argument is that Cossey was describing his chute he thought was taken from Issaquah, not Hayden's..

I already said that the size is the only discrepancy for the initial description.

Cossey's documented descriptions are completely incompatible with the card..

You seem to still claim Cossey was describing Hayden's chute from memory..   No way. He was describing his own.

 

Ok fine, he's describing his own. So what now?

The "Hayden description" is only incompatible because of the canopy size. He never specifies who actually made the thing. 

[FLYJACK 654]

28 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Ok fine, he's describing his own. So what now?

The "Hayden description" is only incompatible because of the canopy size. He never specifies who actually made the thing. 

As I said, the bottom line is Cossey's description is completely incompatible with the packing card found..  Cossey initially believed all four including his back chutes were about to be taken from Issaquah but Hayden's back chutes were secured and Emrich was informed to only send the two fronts. Cossey still believed his back chutes were used when asked for a description of the missing one he described his chute from Issaquah, not Hayden's. Cossey would have figured out his error but never corrected it. He never gave the FBI his packing records for the Hayden chutes. He even lied and said he gave them all his records.. 

I can only speculate on Hayden's description,, some of the descriptions appear blended..

but the facts are clear that Cossey's description is incompatible with the card..

 

What does this mean.

The FBI were looking for the wrong chute for over 50 years and rejected some that may have been Cooper's. The FBI trusted Cossey but he was initially mistaken then maintained his error..

 

Cooper's chute was..

A Pioneer with a 24' ripstop conical Steinthal, July/1960, S/N 60-9707..  likely a similar vintage to Hayden's other chute and NOT an NB6 or modified NB8 container.  Likely olive drab green container and cotton tan harness. Canopy may or may not be all white.

The FBI had Cooper's chute info but never figured it out.

 

 

 

Edited July 30, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

4 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

 

The FBI had Cooper's chute info but never figured it out.

fwiw I told Detlor this on the phone a week or two ago and he was shocked. I've told Larry as well and he was equally surprised. Detlor essentially said they were mostly lawyers back then so they didn't know anything about parachutes or aircraft, etc. They had to rely on others since this case was so far out of the norm for what they routinely dealt with. It's quite interesting looking back and reading that file where they are cataloging the museum chute into evidence and the agent writes, "the identification cards for this are contained in a pocket", while totally oblivious to how abnormal that is.

Also, that file is totally bizarre because whomever wrote it screwed up and used Cossey's description for the MISSING chute to describe it.

 

[FLYJACK 654]

9 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

fwiw I told Detlor this on the phone a week or two ago and he was shocked. I've told Larry as well and he was equally surprised. Detlor essentially said they were mostly lawyers back then so they didn't know anything about parachutes or aircraft, etc. They had to rely on others since this case was so far out of the norm for what they routinely dealt with. It's quite interesting looking back and reading that file where they are cataloging the museum chute into evidence and the agent writes, "the identification cards for this are contained in a pocket", while totally oblivious to how abnormal that is.

Also, that file is totally bizarre because whomever wrote it screwed up and used Cossey's description for the MISSING chute to describe it.

 

Yes, "cards" and the descriptions are conflated throughout the files.

It is easier to catch on a computer with OCR... back then you would have to read all the paper files to catch it. How many agents studied all the files.

These FBI files are not conclusions but investigative notes.. probably lots of communication and bureaucratic errors...

Sure, they relied on Cossey as the expert,, he packed the chutes, he should have the best knowledge... but Cossey made an incorrect assumption and never corrected it.

They should have better documented the chutes and cards right before they went on the plane.. with pictures.

Maybe Cooper's chute was found.

[Robert99 37]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

They are barf bags,, a pilot would have them. These are emergency bailout rigs for PILOTS. Barf bags are stuffed in the chute for quick access. Cossey was also a PILOT.

 

 

 

FlyJack is correct.  Whether you call them barf bags, puke bags, vomit bags, or something else they were a standard cockpit item.  But I have never seen such a bag on a parachute rig.

While I have never personally needed or used one, I have had passengers who did, and they sure beat having to clean up the interior of the aircraft afterwards.

I used to give passenger rides in gliders on hot summer days. I always explained what the bags were for to the passengers and told them to let me know if they started feeling airsick.  I also kept a close eye on their upper lip and if beads of sweat started popping up on that lip I knew that they were getting sick regardless of any claims to the contrary.  

They are relatively small cylindrical plastic bags that have about a two-quart volume with a means for sealing the top after use.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Robert99

[FLYJACK 654]

"burp sack" was  a pilot/plane thing not a parachute thing.. putting them in the folds of a chute was just a handy place to have them available.

The chutes were emergency bailout rigs for pilots not regular jumper rigs.. 

Of course both Hayden and Cossey were pilots.

[olemisscub 466]

Dude please stop this. Hayden provided the initial description. It's in the files. We even have the exact timestamp. Was that line about contacting Hayden at 2:50 AM actually just an excerpt from an agent's novel he was working on? No, of course not. It happened. It wasn't conjured out of an agent's imagination. 

And you can't honestly expect Earl Cossey to remember that one of the two parachutes he packed FIVE MONTHS earlier had vomit bags in them or that one of the two parachutes had a fray mark down the back? Stop this madness. You're far, far too good of a researcher to be going on like this.

I've conceded that "burp sacks" are apparently a thing despite my failure to find evidence for it. It's really not a big deal. So it's ok for you to concede that Hayden misremembered something from forty years earlier when he was talking to Bruce. No one is going to judge you or disrespect you. It's totally OK to be wrong sometimes. 

We just need to ignore Cossey and realize that the initial description of Cooper's chute is probably the best we're gonna get. All you have to do is substitute Hayden saying it was 28 foot for it being 24 foot and it's fine. 

Edited July 31, 2023 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Dude please stop this. Hayden provided the initial description. It's in the files. We even have the exact timestamp. Was that line about contacting Hayden at 2:50 AM actually just an excerpt from an agent's novel he was working on? No, of course not. It happened. It wasn't conjured out of an agent's imagination. 

And you can't honestly expect Earl Cossey to remember that one of the two parachutes he packed FIVE MONTHS earlier had vomit bags in them or that one of the two parachutes had a fray mark down the back? Stop this madness. You're far, far too good of a researcher to be going on like this.

I've conceded that "burp sacks" are apparently a thing despite my failure to find evidence for it. It's really not a big deal. So it's ok for you to concede that Hayden misremembered something from forty years earlier when he was talking to Bruce. No one is going to judge you or disrespect you. It's totally OK to be wrong sometimes. 

We just need to ignore Cossey and realize that the initial description of Cooper's chute is probably the best we're gonna get. All you have to do is substitute Hayden saying it was 28 foot for it being 24 foot and it's fine. 

Not so fast. I am not finished. It still doesn't make sense. 

You give up too early..

When something doesn't make sense to me, I keep going until it is resolved.

Hayden's so called description dated the 25th includes "flat circular" the packing card for the missing chute is a conical,, these are completely different. So, we have both the 28' and type that doesn't match..

This is dated the 25th..

 

 

At 2:00 AM Harrison was contacted..

At 2:50 AM it could have been Halstad that was contacted..

That description could have come from or through Haltsad..

Barry Halstad and Norman Hayden have the same number of letters.

and somehow "flat circular" got added for the 25th FBI page above.

 

FWW, Cossey claims he got a call after the jet landed in Reno... not two days later.

 

Edited July 31, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

Cossey's formal FBI interview in person on the 26th..

Packing the chutes for Hayden is mentioned... though not attributed to Cossey directly, could have been added by agent.

Cossey must have had telephone contact with the FBI before this in person interview..

Edited July 31, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

13 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Not so fast. I am not finished. It still doesn't make sense. 

You give up too early..

When something doesn't make sense to me, I keep going until it is resolved.

Hayden's so called description dated the 25th includes "flat circular" the packing card for the missing chute is a conical,, these are completely different. So, we have both the 28' and type that doesn't match..

This is dated the 25th..

 

 

 

At 2:50 AM it could have been Halstad that was contacted..

That description could have come from or through Haltsad..

Barry Halstad and Norman Hayden have the same number of letters.

FWW, Cossey claims he got a call after the jet landed in Reno... not two days later.

 

But Halstad and Hayden do not. That 2:50 timestamp is pertaining to Hayden. Think about it. Why would they call the guy who contacted Hayden and ask him how Hayden described the parachutes instead of contacting Hayden themselves? Why would Hayden have even given Halstad a detailed description of his chutes in the first place? Halstad made a phone call. That's his entire contribution to the Cooper case. He's a non-factor. Halstad has no bearing in this case aside from being the guy who said "oh, I know a guy..." There's nothing in evidence to suggest Halstad ever saw the chutes, had the chutes described to him, or that he was even there at the airport that night.

So there's no reason to not take that paragraph at face value when it says "Hayden described....". Again, I don't see any reason for this to be this complicated. The person best equipped to provide an exact description of the parachutes would be the parachute owner, which is why they called Hayden for a description. Yes, totally stupid of them to not take photos of the chutes and check the cards, etc. But remember, the FBI were doing their best to be hands off at that point per Nyrop's instructions. 

As for Cossey, I'm with you on the "flat circular" deal. That document is from the late afternoon on the 25th. It's clear by that point they had tracked Cossey down. The fact that they had to amend the previous "2:50 AM description" to include "flat circular" is the clincher that Cossey had nothing to do with the "2:50 AM description". 

Edited July 31, 2023 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 654]

4 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

But Halstad and Hayden do not. That 2:50 timestamp is pertaining to Hayden. Think about it. Why would they call the guy who contacted Hayden and ask him how Hayden described the parachutes instead of contacting Hayden themselves? Why would Hayden have even given Halstad a detailed description of his chutes in the first place? Halstad made a phone call. That's his entire contribution to the Cooper case. He's a non-factor. Halstad has no bearing in this case aside from being the guy who said "oh, I know a guy..." There's nothing in evidence to suggest Halstad ever saw the chutes, had the chutes described to him, or that he was even there at the airport that night.

So there's no reason to not take that paragraph at face value when it says "Hayden described....". Again, I don't see any reason for this to be this complicated. The person best equipped to provide an exact description of the parachutes would be the parachute owner, which is why they called Hayden for a description. Yes, totally stupid of them to not take photos of the chutes and check the cards, etc. But remember, the FBI were doing their best to be hands off at that point per Nyrop's instructions. 

No, it still doesn't make sense. 

"Hayden described" could be through a third party.. it doesn't necessarily mean the agent got the info from Hayden directly.. it could still be misattributed. The problem is that file is a summary, not a transcript.

Hayden said he didn't agree with the chute descriptions, the "civilian luxury chute" for chute #1 and that he thought chute #2 was "identical".. and  that both were "military".. He essentially denied those descriptions came from him, but agreed chute #1 basically matches.

"Civilian luxury chute" suggests somebody is paraphrasing..

Hayden also said he didn't talk directly to FBI agents referring to those descriptions.

Hayden is confirmed to have talked to Harrison and Halstad.

Chute #2 , 28' size doesn't match the card for the missing chute.

Cossey said he was CALLED and asked about the chute Cooper used after the plane landed in Reno. That isn't confirmed in the FBI docs,, who was his initial contact? Were several people trying to contact Cossey?

On the 26th Cossey was interviewed in person by the FBI. He must have been contacted before that by phone. When?

The FBI was trying to track down Cossey on the 25th... unable to up to at least 3:30.

This is where it gets really weird,, A document dated the 25th attributes and ADDS "flat circular" to the initial description of #2 chute.. Where did that come from? It does not match the packing card for the missing chute but does match Cossey's description.. it wasn't in the "Hayden" description.

A flat circular is specific and different from a conical, Hayden didn't know parachutes, it was a conical on both cards not a flat circular.. Who added it before Cossey's interview on the 26th.

 

Something just does not add up...

Weighing an FBI summary over a witness and conflicting descriptions just doesn't work for me.. Many FBI summaries have errors or are misleading.

Something else happened here...

 

[georger 197]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

No, it still doesn't make sense. 

"Hayden described" could be through a third party.. it doesn't necessarily mean the agent got the info from Hayden directly.. it could still be misattributed. The problem is that file is a summary, not a transcript.

Hayden said he didn't agree with the chute descriptions, the "civilian luxury chute" for chute #1 and that he thought chute #2 was "identical".. and  that both were "military".. He essentially denied those descriptions came from him, but agreed chute #1 basically matches.

"Civilian luxury chute" suggests somebody is paraphrasing..

Hayden also said he didn't talk directly to FBI agents referring to those descriptions.

Hayden is confirmed to have talked to Harrison and Halstad.

Chute #2 , 28' size doesn't match the card for the missing chute.

Cossey said he was CALLED and asked about the chute Cooper used after the plane landed in Reno. That isn't confirmed in the FBI docs,, who was his initial contact? Were several people trying to contact Cossey?

On the 26th Cossey was interviewed in person by the FBI. He must have been contacted before that by phone. When?

The FBI was trying to track down Cossey on the 25th... unable to up to at least 3:30.

This is where it gets really weird,, A document dated the 25th attributes and ADDS "flat circular" to the initial description of #2 chute.. Where did that come from? It does not match the packing card for the missing chute but does match Cossey's description.. it wasn't in the "Hayden" description.

A flat circular is specific and different from a conical, Hayden didn't know parachutes, it was a conical on both cards not a flat circular.. Who added it before Cossey's interview on the 26th.

 

Something just does not add up...

Weighing an FBI summary over a witness and conflicting descriptions just doesn't work for me.. Many FBI summaries have errors or are misleading.

Something else happened here..

 

..... or, something else didn't happen !

maybe its time to accept reality ?  and stop trying to always construct alternate realities ?

Edited July 31, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

17 minutes ago, georger said:

..... or, something else didn't happen !

maybe its time to accept reality ?  and stop trying to always construct alternate realities ?

This is the attitude that maintained the status quo in this case for decades... 

Fortunately for this case, you aren't the arbiter of realty..

You can't take things on "face value" when there is contradictory evidence.

Ironically, I took the cigarette stains on the fingers on face value BECAUSE there was NO contradictory evidence and about 5 mentions of it.

 

Here, we have contradictory evidence and testimony...

 

I am consistent, others are not...

[olemisscub 466]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

No, it still doesn't make sense. 

"Hayden described" could be through a third party.. it doesn't necessarily mean the agent got the info from Hayden directly.. it could still be misattributed. The problem is that file is a summary, not a transcript.

Hayden said he didn't agree with the chute descriptions, the "civilian luxury chute" for chute #1 and that he thought chute #2 was "identical".. and  that both were "military".. He essentially denied those descriptions came from him, but agreed chute #1 basically matches.

"Civilian luxury chute" suggests somebody is paraphrasing..

Hayden also said he didn't talk directly to FBI agents referring to those descriptions.

Hayden is confirmed to have talked to Harrison and Halstad.

Chute #2 , 28' size doesn't match the card for the missing chute.

Cossey said he was CALLED and asked about the chute Cooper used after the plane landed in Reno. That isn't confirmed in the FBI docs,, who was his initial contact? Were several people trying to contact Cossey?

On the 26th Cossey was interviewed in person by the FBI. He must have been contacted before that by phone. When?

The FBI was trying to track down Cossey on the 25th... unable to up to at least 3:30.

This is where it gets really weird,, A document dated the 25th attributes and ADDS "flat circular" to the initial description of #2 chute.. Where did that come from? It does not match the packing card for the missing chute but does match Cossey's description.. it wasn't in the "Hayden" description.

A flat circular is specific and different from a conical, Hayden didn't know parachutes, it was a conical on both cards not a flat circular.. Who added it before Cossey's interview on the 26th.

 

Something just does not add up...

Weighing an FBI summary over a witness and conflicting descriptions just doesn't work for me.. Many FBI summaries have errors or are misleading.

Something else happened here...

 

My man, this isn't complicated. "We had tried all day (up to 3:30 PM to reach him at his home)" What does that tell you? It tells me that they finally got in contact with him at 3:30 PM. THEN, at 4:53 they fire off the AIRTEL, which includes the first mention of "flat circular". Does "flat circular" appear in Hayden's description? No, it doesn't. Who uses "flat circular" in their description? Cossey uses it during his in person interview on the 26th. 

So very clearly and obviously they finally talked to Cossey over the phone around 3:30. During that conversation they received some new info from him that complemented Hayden's description, so they just added it to the Hayden description for their 4:53 AIRTEL. 

You are chasing ghosts. You are using statements made DECADES later by a known liar (Cossey) and a guy who clearly forgot what happened (Hayden) to contradict original source documents. 

If you JUST stick to the 302's and ignore statements made 30 to 40 years later, the ONLY thing that needs to be explained is why the canopy size and shape is described incorrectly.

The original source documents are the best and most reliable evidence in this case, not 40 year old memories. You know this to be the case, otherwise you wouldn't be such a 302 obsessive like I am. 

With respect, it really seems like you are chasing ghosts and it's causing your head to spin in circles trying to explain why decades old memories don't line up with original documents.