DB Cooper

[georger 197]

50 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

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. 

 

There is something called 'standard error'.  Especially where people and events are concerned. The longer a situation goes, the greater standard error becomes. There comes a  point where some people start spinning out nonsense whether it fits or not. And so on and so forth ............................................  the Cooper case needs a bath and a haircut!

Edited July 31, 2023 by georger

[FLYJACK 654]

Who supplied this description.. prior to 5:10AM Nov 25th

Edited August 1, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

Who supplied this description.. prior to 5:10AM Nov 25th

Since these are descriptions of the chest packs, it's obviously Lynn Emerick. Recall that further down in the document he advises the FBI that he's not sure when Cossey is going to be in that day (to Sky Sports). 

[FLYJACK 654]

13 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

Since these are descriptions of the chest packs, it's obviously Lynn Emerick. Recall that further down in the document he advises the FBI that he's not sure when Cossey is going to be in that day (to Sky Sports). 

I doubt that is Emerick...  they would have mentioned the chutes.

Linn unknowingly grabbed a dummy chute, that description is for the missing chute. Makes no sense.

and the entire lengthy 5:10 AM doc was issued in 10 minutes..  nope.

Nice try though.

My guess is, it was somebody who handled the chutes right before they went on the plane. Somebody viewed the chutes and wrote down a description.

and the Hayden description may have been the same source in whole or part (conflated),, that is why it has "civilian luxury" and burp sacks, frayed, etc.. and Hayden disagreed with the description attributed to him.

I am not sure exactly what happened but it is not as clear as you guys think,,

 

 

[olemisscub 466]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

 

.. and Hayden disagreed with the description attributed to him.

Why is Stamp of Legitimacy being given to Hayden's forty year old memory of something he probably hadn't thought about in decades before Bruce walked into his hangar? I've already shown his memory to be false. He claims the only time he interacted at all or spoke to the FBI was with the jerk agent who brought his chute back to him. We KNOW this to be false. We have him as a MATTER OF HISTORICAL RECORD speaking to the FBI on 11-25-71, 12-2-71, 2-3-72, 8-8-73, and 8-28-73. 

Bro, you are a better researcher than to be chasing ghosts around like this. 

[FLYJACK 654]

8 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Why is Stamp of Legitimacy being given to Hayden's forty year old memory of something he probably hadn't thought about in decades before Bruce walked into his hangar? I've already shown his memory to be false. He claims the only time he interacted at all or spoke to the FBI was with the jerk agent who brought his chute back to him. We KNOW this to be false. We have him as a MATTER OF HISTORICAL RECORD speaking to the FBI on 11-25-71, 12-2-71, 2-3-72, 8-8-73, and 8-28-73. 

Bro, you are a better researcher than to be chasing ghosts around like this. 

DUDE, you are creating a strawman...  the context was the description attributed to him which he disagreed...

He also cited an interaction with the FBI, so he clearly was not saying he never talked to the FBI.. HE WAS REFERRING TO THAT DESCRIPTION. That was the context.

It isn't just the early contact with the FBI, Hayden disagreed with the description,,, "civilian luxury chute" is false and Hayden said they were both military..

That chute has no military label, so somebody added that subjective description from a visual inspection .. and it didn't come from Hayden.

It was probably added by somebody who examined the chutes before they went on the plane. If that was added and not from Hayden that puts into question the entire description.

I don't know exactly what happened but I know the simple scenario you believe in doesn't make sense. The 302's are littered with errors and conflicts. The chute descriptions are all mixed up. The 302's are not conclusions they are investigative notes. That Hayden chute description is a summary, not a primary interview. 

Even if they did talk to Hayden, it still doesn't make sense.

 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by FLYJACK

[FLYJACK 654]

17 hours ago, olemisscub said:

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. 

 

So, you are speculating.. which is necessary given the gaps in knowledge..

But, it still doesn't make sense.

If they got in touch with Cossey by phone after 3:30PM on the 24th and he gave them chute descriptions,, why would they add only "flat circular" to Hayden's description, nothing else and not the front chutes. He knew one was a dummy at this time.

Nope. Something else happened.

[olemisscub 466]

1 hour ago, FLYJACK said:

 

 

Nope. Something else happened.

Ok, I’ll continue to disagree, but I’ll go along with it. So what else happened? Speculate. 

[FLYJACK 654]

2 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Ok, I’ll continue to disagree, but I’ll go along with it. So what else happened? Speculate. 

You can't disagree with something that is unknown.

Do you think Hayden used the term "civilian luxury chute"? when he denied and rejected it and said they were both military and "identical". 

 

The front chute description was before they talked to Cossey on the 25th.. that came from somewhere, either Cossey was contacted by somebody earlier OR somebody who handled the chutes before they went on the plane described them.

For the backs, that description by Hayden is either in full or in part from somebody else. Either somebody who handled the chutes or a call to Cossey or a mix of both.

I do lean towards those descriptions being from somebody who handled the chutes before they went on the plane.. it makes sense that somebody documented the descriptions.. but it is possible somebody talked to Cossey on the phone earlier than 3:30 PM on the 25th,, we don't know.

because that "museum" chute has no labelling and could be mistaken for a "civilian chute" vs a military chute with a label. Neither Hayden nor Cossey would have INCORRECTLY called it a "civilian luxury chute" but somebody who handled it before it went on the plane could have. They would have also noted the fray and the burp sacks. 

What does that mean.. the initial descriptions would be attributed falsely or at least partially to Hayden. 

Hayden also said he never looked at the canopy, he wouldn't even know it was white. 

The attribution of "flat circular" on the 25th to Hayden's description is odd.. if is was from Cossey they would have added the colour and the front chutes to the doc.. that suggests they had mixed up several descriptions..

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by FLYJACK

[olemisscub 466]

3 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

You can't disagree with something that is unknown.

 

I don't think it's unknown though. I've explained to you my thoughts on it and I've explained it sufficiently to my satisfaction. 

Do you think Hayden used the term "civilian luxury chute"? when he denied and rejected it and said they were both military and "identical". 

Actually I do think he used that term and and I don't know how many freaking times I have to express to you my belief that I simply DO NOT CARE about what Hayden said 40 years later. Every time you say "he rejected it" you're giving credibility to a 40 year old memory that is contradicted by original source documents. I'm sure Hayden was a nice enough guy and wasn't outright being duplicitous like Cossey, but I have no reason to give more weight to his 2011 statement than his 1971 statement. 

Reason I think Hayden said that is because we have him a few days later on the 1st of December specifically talking about this harness. For some reason he seemed to give enough of a shit about the harness to even bring it up. Why would he even bring that up? It's not like he was bringing it up for identification purposes. They already knew it was his. It sounds like he's bringing it up to say "I want my parachute back. It has this harness that I like..." (and again, I don't give a crap about what he said 40 years later about it being uncomfortable or whatever).

I do lean towards those descriptions being from somebody who handled the chutes before they went on the plane.

We already have a description like that in the same document. Comes from Al Lee. He mistakenly says they were both olive drab, but it was night time so maybe he couldn't seem them clearly.

 

 

[FLYJACK 654]

42 minutes ago, olemisscub said:

I don't think it's unknown though. I've explained to you my thoughts on it and I've explained it sufficiently to my satisfaction. 

Do you think Hayden used the term "civilian luxury chute"? when he denied and rejected it and said they were both military and "identical". 

Actually I do think he used that term and and I don't know how many freaking times I have to express to you my belief that I simply DO NOT CARE about what Hayden said 40 years later. Every time you say "he rejected it" you're giving credibility to a 40 year old memory that is contradicted by original source documents. I'm sure Hayden was a nice enough guy and wasn't outright being duplicitous like Cossey, but I have no reason to give more weight to his 2011 statement than his 1971 statement. 

Reason I think Hayden said that is because we have him a few days later on the 1st of December specifically talking about this harness. For some reason he seemed to give enough of a shit about the harness to even bring it up. Why would he even bring that up? It's not like he was bringing it up for identification purposes. They already knew it was his. It sounds like he's bringing it up to say "I want my parachute back. It has this harness that I like..." (and again, I don't give a crap about what he said 40 years later about it being uncomfortable or whatever).

I do lean towards those descriptions being from somebody who handled the chutes before they went on the plane.

We already have a description like that in the same document. Comes from Al Lee. He mistakenly says they were both olive drab, but it was night time so maybe he couldn't seem them clearly.

 

 

Both back chutes were later described as having the same tan cotton harness,, with the exception of Cossey's description..

Why would one be called "civilian luxury type" and the other "military" if they had the same harness.

[olemisscub 466]

6 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Both back chutes were later described as having the same tan cotton harness,, with the exception of Cossey's description..

Why would one be called "civilian luxury type" and the other "military" if they had the same harness.

You know as well as I do that they completely screwed up the descriptions during later files. Nothing can or should be inferred from any of those descriptions. Hell, when they catalogued the museum chute into evidence the description they gave was of Cooper's chute. This is why I think the most reliable description is the very first description. Everything gets conflated and Frankensteined after that by agents who got confused and by Cossey's crap.  

The very first description of the museum chute, regardless of who gave it, has been shown to be 100% accurate. We know this. Thus, the same degree of legitimacy should be given to the Cooper chute description. Aside from the canopy size being wrong, there is no reason at all whatsoever to doubt that description. None. It was paired with a 100% accurate description of the museum chute, thus it's likely accurate as well, or at least more likely to be accurate than any subsequent descriptions. 

So all of this talk of who's on first and what's on second and I don't know's on third is irrelevant. We should all roll with the first description as being most accurate.

The likelihood of subsequent descriptions being more accurate than the first description is highly unlikely (aside from the packing card and the canopy size). All subsequent second hand descriptions just confuse the issue and muddy the waters. They should be ignored entirely IMO. 

[georger 197]

18 hours ago, olemisscub said:

You know as well as I do that they completely screwed up the descriptions during later files. Nothing can or should be inferred from any of those descriptions. Hell, when they catalogued the museum chute into evidence the description they gave was of Cooper's chute. This is why I think the most reliable description is the very first description. Everything gets conflated and Frankensteined after that by agents who got confused and by Cossey's crap.  

The very first description of the museum chute, regardless of who gave it, has been shown to be 100% accurate. We know this. Thus, the same degree of legitimacy should be given to the Cooper chute description. Aside from the canopy size being wrong, there is no reason at all whatsoever to doubt that description. None. It was paired with a 100% accurate description of the museum chute, thus it's likely accurate as well, or at least more likely to be accurate than any subsequent descriptions. 

So all of this talk of who's on first and what's on second and I don't know's on third is irrelevant. We should all roll with the first description as being most accurate.

The likelihood of subsequent descriptions being more accurate than the first description is highly unlikely (aside from the packing card and the canopy size). All subsequent second hand descriptions just confuse the issue and muddy the waters. They should be ignored entirely IMO. 

Cossey reportedly got sick and tired of the whole thing ...

[FLYJACK 654]

The Hayden description file was dated the 25th...

Another description disseminated on the 25th added a tan harness and flat circular chute to that description of the missing chute. It also included a description of the front chute.

[olemisscub 466]

Had another long call with McNally the other night. Some observations/interesting tidbits. 

These first two should sound familiar:

- His "Tina", Sharon Weathersby, asked him if he had a problem with American Airlines and she asked why he picked them. He told her that he thought AA was a reputable company and that they would do the right thing. I asked if that was the truth or if he just picked them because it fit his plan. He said he was telling the truth. Said he didn't want to go with Braniff or some other crummier airline. I told him how remarkably similar that conversation was with what occurred in the Cooper case. I explained it all to him and when I repeated Cooper's "I just have a grudge" line, he laughed and said "That's a hell of a line! Suppose that's smoother than admitting you're just robbing the sumbitch." (I've been proposing for a while now that the grudge line, while it may have been a true statement by Cooper, is likely overanalyzed...glad he thinks so too!)

- I asked him what the last communication he had with anyone in the aircraft was. He said "I called up to the cockpit and told them I couldn't get the stairs down and that maybe they should slow down some."

- He had a pistol in his mystery bag. I asked him why he had that given that he already had a submachine gun. He said it was intended for use on the ground in the event he needed to carjack someone. His plan was either to hotwire a car or hitchhike and then carjack the driver. When the first car that offered to give him a ride was the Sheriff's patrol car, he deftly tossed the pistol into the grass. Given that all of my personal "canonical six Copycats" either brandished pistols (Heady, McCoy, Hahneman) or had them hidden (Mac, LaPoint, Fisher), I think it's a decent assumption that Cooper had a pistol hidden on his person somewhere, perhaps in the mystery bag. 

- He's looking forward to going to Seattle for CC. He said the last time he was there was Nov 30th, 1964, which was the date of his Navy discharge. Said his brother was discharged a week earlier from the same Naval air station on Whidbey and hung around waiting for Mac to get out. Once Mac was discharged they bought a clunker and drove home to Michigan. 

- Mac said he visited airports in Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and St. Louis, before deciding that St. Louis had the weakest security. 

- I asked him if he drank or ate anything on the flight, and he said absolutely not. He was concerned they were going to drug him. Seems reasonable that this is why Cooper refused all refreshments as well after the hijacking began. Interestingly, both Mac and Hahneman requested pills and both broke the pills in half and required a crew member to swallow half before they would take the other half. 

Edited August 2, 2023 by olemisscub

[olemisscub 466]

Oh, he went to LA last month where they are filming the movie about his skyjacking. He texted me some pics. 

 

Edited August 2, 2023 by olemisscub

[FLYJACK 654]

6 hours ago, olemisscub said:

Had another long call with McNally the other night. Some observations/interesting tidbits. 

These first two should sound familiar:

- His "Tina", Sharon Weathersby, asked him if he had a problem with American Airlines and she asked why he picked them. He told her that he thought AA was a reputable company and that they would do the right thing. I asked if that was the truth or if he just picked them because it fit his plan. He said he was telling the truth. Said he didn't want to go with Braniff or some other crummier airline. I told him how remarkably similar that conversation was with what occurred in the Cooper case. I explained it all to him and when I repeated Cooper's "I just have a grudge" line, he laughed and said "That's a hell of a line! Suppose that's smoother than admitting you're just robbing the sumbitch." (I've been proposing for a while now that the grudge line, while it may have been a true statement by Cooper, is likely overanalyzed...glad he thinks so too!)

- I asked him what the last communication he had with anyone in the aircraft was. He said "I called up to the cockpit and told them I couldn't get the stairs down and that maybe they should slow down some."

- He had a pistol in his mystery bag. I asked him why he had that given that he already had a submachine gun. He said it was intended for use on the ground in the event he needed to carjack someone. His plan was either to hotwire a car or hitchhike and then carjack the driver. When the first car that offered to give him a ride was the Sheriff's patrol car, he deftly tossed the pistol into the grass. Given that all of my personal "canonical six Copycats" either brandished pistols (Heady, McCoy, Hahneman) or had them hidden (Mac, LaPoint, Fisher), I think it's a decent assumption that Cooper had a pistol hidden on his person somewhere, perhaps in the mystery bag. 

- He's looking forward to going to Seattle for CC. He said the last time he was there was Nov 30th, 1964, which was the date of his Navy discharge. Said his brother was discharged a week earlier from the same Naval air station on Whidbey and hung around waiting for Mac to get out. Once Mac was discharged they bought a clunker and drove home to Michigan. 

- Mac said he visited airports in Chicago, Detroit, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, and St. Louis, before deciding that St. Louis had the weakest security. 

- I asked him if he drank or ate anything on the flight, and he said absolutely not. He was concerned they were going to drug him. Seems reasonable that this is why Cooper refused all refreshments as well after the hijacking began. Interestingly, both Mac and Hahneman requested pills and both broke the pills in half and required a crew member to swallow half before they would take the other half. 

Interesting info..

I always thought Cooper was vulnerable with only a bomb.. and might have had a concealed weapon.

If people didn't think the bomb was real he needed a backup.. even if just for confidence.

Imagine if somebody said hey that bomb is fake.. he'd be done.

 

[olemisscub 466]

7 minutes ago, FLYJACK said:

Interesting info..

I always thought Cooper was vulnerable with only a bomb.. and might have had a concealed weapon.

If people didn't think the bomb was real he needed a backup.. even if just for confidence.

Imagine if somebody said hey that bomb is fake.. he'd be done.

 

I hadn’t thought of it from that angle. That would be indeed be a necessary contingency.

[georger 197]

On 8/2/2023 at 11:36 PM, olemisscub said:

I hadn’t thought of it from that angle. That would be indeed be a necessary contingency.

Dumb luck. Serendipity.  

He picks a stew who is the daughter of an electrician, who can remember and describe the wiring she sees ...! 

Red wire connected to /black wire connected to ...  !   Hope he had better luck with the people he ran into on the ground ?   

If it looks like a bomb and is wired like a bomb it might just be a bomb! Better back off and give him what he wants and get rid of him at the first opportunity ? 

Edited August 4, 2023 by georger

[olemisscub 466]

Speak of the devil. Latest Vault:

 

[FLYJACK 654]

1 hour ago, olemisscub said:

Speak of the devil. Latest Vault:

 

Repeat from file #64..

I still find it amusing the FBI couldn't read the packing card properly..

226 is not the type, it is the serial number.

[Robert99 37]

4 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Repeat from file #64..

I still find it amusing the FBI couldn't read the packing card properly..

226 is not the type, it is the serial number.

This is the Hayden parachute that is now in the WSHM.  I frankly do not think that the description on the packing card is correct about this having a 26-foot conical canopy.  Maybe someone can get it opened and inspected some day.

[FLYJACK 654]

9 hours ago, Robert99 said:

This is the Hayden parachute that is now in the WSHM.  I frankly do not think that the description on the packing card is correct about this having a 26-foot conical canopy.  Maybe someone can get it opened and inspected some day.

Cossey filled out the card with 26', it was repacked twice after Hayden got it back and  never changed, the container is a 24'...  can you even stuff a 28' in a 24' container..

Hayden just wanted minimum chutes to meet regulations.. he was never going to use them.

There is no evidence that is anything other than a 26' canopy.

[olemisscub 466]

10 hours ago, Robert99 said:

This is the Hayden parachute that is now in the WSHM.  I frankly do not think that the description on the packing card is correct about this having a 26-foot conical canopy.  Maybe someone can get it opened and inspected some day.

It’s hard to argue this point when it had been repacked TWICE after Hayden got it back. Those riggers would have realized it wasn’t a 26 in there at that time 

edit: looks like Fly beat me to it 

Edited August 5, 2023 by olemisscub

[Robert99 37]

3 hours ago, FLYJACK said:

Cossey filled out the card with 26', it was repacked twice after Hayden got it back and  never changed, the container is a 24'...  can you even stuff a 28' in a 24' container..

Hayden just wanted minimum chutes to meet regulations.. he was never going to use them.

There is no evidence that is anything other than a 26' canopy.

As been pointed out repeatedly previously, the canopy in the WSHM parachute appears to be too big to be an NB-6 type 26-foot conical canopy.  Unless there is something else packed in that container with the canopy and pilot chute.