georger 197
nigel99 150
Councilman's post very simply points out that the parachute is not silk and that he has the credentials to back up that claim (he holds either the highest or one of the highest ratings related to parachute maintenance and repair).
The summary as I see it is "ALL parachutes of that era were nylon, the FBI are talking out of their arses stating it is silk". At a practical level I still come across people selling "parachute silk" clothing - there is something magical about the word silk.
The summary as I see it is "ALL parachutes of that era were nylon, the FBI are talking out of their arses stating it is silk". At a practical level I still come across people selling "parachute silk" clothing - there is something magical about the word silk.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
georger 197
QuoteCouncilman's post very simply points out that the parachute is not silk and that he has the credentials to back up that claim (he holds either the highest or one of the highest ratings related to parachute maintenance and repair).
The summary as I see it is "ALL parachutes of that era were nylon, the FBI are talking out of their arses stating it is silk". At a practical level I still come across people selling "parachute silk" clothing - there is something magical about the word silk.
He may be correct but until he has seen the chute how can he know? All he can do is guess.
Just looking at the chute, the way it lays etc, does it
look more like nylon or silk?
Personally I dont care which is correct. Several articles say the FBI got experts to examine the chute beyond anything Cossey said or did ...
it wouldnt take an expert (or even a good novice) 2 seconds to know if its silk or nylon ...
nigel99 150
QuoteQuoteCouncilman's post very simply points out that the parachute is not silk and that he has the credentials to back up that claim (he holds either the highest or one of the highest ratings related to parachute maintenance and repair).
The summary as I see it is "ALL parachutes of that era were nylon, the FBI are talking out of their arses stating it is silk". At a practical level I still come across people selling "parachute silk" clothing - there is something magical about the word silk.
He may be correct but until he has seen the chute how can he know? All he can do is guess.
Just looking at the chute, the way it lays etc, does it
look more like nylon or silk?
Personally I dont care which is correct. Several articles say the FBI got experts to examine the chute beyond anything Cossey said or did ...
it wouldnt take an expert (or even a good novice) 2 seconds to know if its silk or nylon ...
I don't think you need to "see" something to know the answer if you are an expert. For example we "know" that any personal computer built after 1980 does not contain valves. I don't think you need to see inside to be pretty sure that statement is valid.
Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.
councilman24 36
What are you trying to accomplish?
No I haven't talked to anybody. And I am an analytical chemist and can easily tell the difference between silk and nylon also.
The fact is tha no parachute made in the U.S. in 1946 was made of silk. Many people call it silk. I very much doubt that any 'authortative' source has called it silk. Only civilian, news or uninformed officials. If you care to point me to a lap report that says otherwise I'll be glad to read it. And figure out why it is wrong.
The parachute in the photo I attached IS nylon, by definition of what it is and when it was made. Many people automatically either believe a parachute is silk or call it silk generically. That's all I've ever seen.
An FBI agent calling it silk doesn't mean squat. An FBI lab testing it and saying it was silk would mean more. If that exits let me know.
Here is a description on ebay right now of a parachute that never saw a silk worm in its imagination. The seller calls it silf several times.
"For auction is a 35-foot, Type MC1, olive drab Silk Parachute with canvas carrying bag. The canopy has what appear to be two professional patches. There is one large (about 12” – all pieces intact, clean) tear and a few small tears. I’ve tried to take photos of all tears and patches. The date of manufacture, by Mills Mfg. Co., is October 1973 (stamped on canopy). "
http://cgi.ebay.com/Silk-Parachute-MC1-35-ft-Canopy-w-Bag-1973-Olive-Drab-/280557935037?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item41528e59bd
Believe me or not. Anyone saying it is silk is uninformed or misinformed. All I'm trying to accomplish is to correct errorneous statements. It is not silk. It is nylon. It could easily have been in service in the skydiving community in the 60's. It would survive burying for 37 years. White would stain to tan. The other number is the contract number. More information is on the opposite side of the canopy if it wasn't cut off to use it as a skydiving parachute. These are all facts simply based on the date of manufacturer in the photo (And it is the DOM, not a repack date or even an in service date)
I KNOW these things by knowing parachutes. If I could examine it I might learn more. Examining or seeing photos of the rest of the find that this was cutaway from would be useful.
I have NO dog in this fight. Just trying to add some real information, not repeated wrong statements.
Is it Cooper's? I don't know.
Added.. I hadn't seen the photo of the pink parachute but just looked at it. Who cares? It is of little importance. The pink is most likely and pretty obviously a home done dye job. Someone probably tried to dye it red and got pink. Nylon is very hard to dye at home. It was common in the 60's to dye surplus equipment so it looked "cool". Usually the container was dyed black.
BTW the FBI trying to tie the Amboy chute to an NB-6 is not particularly useful. As a military chute an NB-6 would have had a 26' nylon conical parachute. I could give you the part numbers. But, as a skydiver rig an NB-6 might very well have had any number of different parachutes in it. IF it is a Navy conical original to an NB-6, AND that's mildly interesting. But main parachutes, even then, were mix and match. Containers and mains were not necessarily kept together. An examination by a rigger with some knowledge of round parachutes could very likely tell if it is a 26' Navy canopy, even with the data panel gone. If 1946 records exits the contract number could be looked up to find the part and manufacturer of that contract. I'd assume the FBI tried to do this. Unless they really have never had a rigger talk to them. The accounts of them wanting someone knowledgable about NB-6's to come forward ot help seems silly. Any older rigger familiar with rounds could help.
No I haven't talked to anybody. And I am an analytical chemist and can easily tell the difference between silk and nylon also.
The fact is tha no parachute made in the U.S. in 1946 was made of silk. Many people call it silk. I very much doubt that any 'authortative' source has called it silk. Only civilian, news or uninformed officials. If you care to point me to a lap report that says otherwise I'll be glad to read it. And figure out why it is wrong.
The parachute in the photo I attached IS nylon, by definition of what it is and when it was made. Many people automatically either believe a parachute is silk or call it silk generically. That's all I've ever seen.
An FBI agent calling it silk doesn't mean squat. An FBI lab testing it and saying it was silk would mean more. If that exits let me know.
Here is a description on ebay right now of a parachute that never saw a silk worm in its imagination. The seller calls it silf several times.
"For auction is a 35-foot, Type MC1, olive drab Silk Parachute with canvas carrying bag. The canopy has what appear to be two professional patches. There is one large (about 12” – all pieces intact, clean) tear and a few small tears. I’ve tried to take photos of all tears and patches. The date of manufacture, by Mills Mfg. Co., is October 1973 (stamped on canopy). "
http://cgi.ebay.com/Silk-Parachute-MC1-35-ft-Canopy-w-Bag-1973-Olive-Drab-/280557935037?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item41528e59bd
Believe me or not. Anyone saying it is silk is uninformed or misinformed. All I'm trying to accomplish is to correct errorneous statements. It is not silk. It is nylon. It could easily have been in service in the skydiving community in the 60's. It would survive burying for 37 years. White would stain to tan. The other number is the contract number. More information is on the opposite side of the canopy if it wasn't cut off to use it as a skydiving parachute. These are all facts simply based on the date of manufacturer in the photo (And it is the DOM, not a repack date or even an in service date)
I KNOW these things by knowing parachutes. If I could examine it I might learn more. Examining or seeing photos of the rest of the find that this was cutaway from would be useful.
I have NO dog in this fight. Just trying to add some real information, not repeated wrong statements.
Is it Cooper's? I don't know.
Added.. I hadn't seen the photo of the pink parachute but just looked at it. Who cares? It is of little importance. The pink is most likely and pretty obviously a home done dye job. Someone probably tried to dye it red and got pink. Nylon is very hard to dye at home. It was common in the 60's to dye surplus equipment so it looked "cool". Usually the container was dyed black.
BTW the FBI trying to tie the Amboy chute to an NB-6 is not particularly useful. As a military chute an NB-6 would have had a 26' nylon conical parachute. I could give you the part numbers. But, as a skydiver rig an NB-6 might very well have had any number of different parachutes in it. IF it is a Navy conical original to an NB-6, AND that's mildly interesting. But main parachutes, even then, were mix and match. Containers and mains were not necessarily kept together. An examination by a rigger with some knowledge of round parachutes could very likely tell if it is a 26' Navy canopy, even with the data panel gone. If 1946 records exits the contract number could be looked up to find the part and manufacturer of that contract. I'd assume the FBI tried to do this. Unless they really have never had a rigger talk to them. The accounts of them wanting someone knowledgable about NB-6's to come forward ot help seems silly. Any older rigger familiar with rounds could help.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE
Quote
If I were, I would try to discount everything and just say Cooper died in the jump.
This whole scenario about the parachute in Amboy reminds me of the final scenes in the film Raiders of the Lost Ark.
EATON
Oh, it will be, Dr. Jones, I assure
you. We have top men working on it
right now.
INDY
Who?
EATON
Top men.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I will say this for Blevins he is starting to hold his own. He got off the Christiansen kick and then let himself become engrossed in the details of the crime and the possible explanations - and is willing to challenge Georger. We all know he will not abandon his book nor the subject - but he also wants to put out a creditable product and when in doubt - stop and think and research. Better later than sooner and get laughed at or as in my case get labeled a crank or delusional.
The following applies to the State of Florida, but I am sure it is nationwide.
"A state commission looking at wrongful convictions heard Friday that bad idenitifications and the mishandling of evidence by authorities are the chief culprits in a legal system that so often sends innocent people to prison."
"The commisssion was told that out of nearly 300 falsely imprisoned inmates later cleared by DNA test results, more than three-quarters were wrongly identified by their victims and more than half were convicted on evidence that was badly handled by authorites."
In a crime investigated 39 yrs ago - mishandling for DNA was proliferate because there were no guidelines or precautions taken to avoid DNA contamination...DNA studies did NOT come about until much later.
The article made me think about the holding of evidence and the contamination of the existing DNA. Most of these crimes involved rape where the person left DNA in a specific area or on specific garments. In the Cooper case - there was NO specific DNA left...all I have ever heard about was about micro particial particles on the clasp of the tie (a piece of evidence that was handled without gloves on occasions and we all know that the clasp was removed to check for prints). There is also NO testimony that puts this specific tie on Cooper. WITHOUT those cigarette butts or the cups - they have absolutely NO proveable DNA profile for Cooper.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
Quote
BTW the FBI trying to tie the Amboy chute to an NB-6 is not particularly useful. As a military chute an NB-6 would have had a 26' nylon conical parachute. I could give you the part numbers. But, as a skydiver rig an NB-6 might very well have had any number of different parachutes in it. IF it is a Navy conical original to an NB-6, AND that's mildly interesting. But main parachutes, even then, were mix and match. Containers and mains were not necessarily kept together. An examination by a rigger with some knowledge of round parachutes could very likely tell if it is a 26' Navy canopy, even with the data panel gone. If 1946 records exits the contract number could be looked up to find the part and manufacturer of that contract. I'd assume the FBI tried to do this. Unless they really have never had a rigger talk to them. The accounts of them wanting someone knowledgable about NB-6's to come forward ot help seems silly. Any older rigger familiar with rounds could help.
According to Cossey he packed a 28 round into the NB-6. He is on record as having stated this many times and claimed Cooper had a HARD left Pull. Does this information help the information you are providing. I realize you have read this site, but this could have been something upon reading such a large thread a bit of information you may find useful.
With the knowledge you have, perhaps you could offer the FBI some assistance in identifing the Amboy Chute. One would think they would jump on this - just to rule out the Amboy Chute as far as the Cooper Incident.
What I know about Nylon and Silk. I know you can get more silk into a space than you can get nylon (speaking in terms of parachute quality material). Just something women know without being a chemist.
Silk does look different in a wrinkled stage than Nylon. The wrinkles are tighter in Silk than they are in Nylon...but this would depend on how it was stored and how long it had been laying out.
Copyright 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 2013, 2014, 2015 by Jo Weber
councilman24 36
Most skydivers used 28' military round rather than a Navy conical. My first two jumps in 1978 were on a military 28' C-9 canopy, virtually identical to a 1946 28' round. The NB-8 was designed for a 28 so the 6 would have been full. And yes probably a hard left pull. BUT, since it was set up and I assume in use it wasn't hard enough to matter. In other words if a skydiver routinely used it like that then it would have been hard but fine. IF he packed it just to give to cooper, while it would have been hard if he could get it in someone else could get it out.
A 28' military canopy from 1946 would also be easy to distinguish from a 26' Navy Conical. They are all still nylon. Some CONTAINERS were cotton but the parachutes and lines were nylon.
The Pilot Chute and bridle if still attached may identify it as a skydiver main.
I'd be glad to offer the FBI help but I can't believe they didn't drive down the road and have any number of master riggers look at it. It just isn't that hard to do or specialized knowledge.
BTW I have a 28', an NB-8, and several other military seat and back containers and parachutes sitting in the next room. I happen not to have a NB-6 because NB-8's were more popular in the skydiving world when I came around.
BTW it is entirely reasonable that someone would release the main parachute to keep from being drug or to be able to move more easily faster. And if the money was tied to the harness it would be faster to release the main and start moving with the money attached. But, there should be links, risers and the release hardware at the end of the lines or still buried if it was the lines were cut by who found it as reproted.
A 28' military canopy from 1946 would also be easy to distinguish from a 26' Navy Conical. They are all still nylon. Some CONTAINERS were cotton but the parachutes and lines were nylon.
The Pilot Chute and bridle if still attached may identify it as a skydiver main.
I'd be glad to offer the FBI help but I can't believe they didn't drive down the road and have any number of master riggers look at it. It just isn't that hard to do or specialized knowledge.
BTW I have a 28', an NB-8, and several other military seat and back containers and parachutes sitting in the next room. I happen not to have a NB-6 because NB-8's were more popular in the skydiving world when I came around.
BTW it is entirely reasonable that someone would release the main parachute to keep from being drug or to be able to move more easily faster. And if the money was tied to the harness it would be faster to release the main and start moving with the money attached. But, there should be links, risers and the release hardware at the end of the lines or still buried if it was the lines were cut by who found it as reproted.
I'm old for my age.
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE
Terry Urban
D-8631
FAA DPRE
Robert99 37
I owned an NB-6 parachute until sometime in the fall of 1971. The NB-6 is unusual in several respects. The shroud lines stopped at the hem of the canopy and tapes were used over the canopy instead of shroud lines. This resulted in a smaller container being necessary and thus the parachute was more adaptable to being used in cramped cockpits (such as the sailplane I used it in). Being a conical canopy, the canopy could not be stretched out flat on a hangar floor or instance. Further, the pilot chute was unusual in that the bottom of the pilot chute assembly had a "stud" which stuck out the top of the pilot chute when it was compressed. This stud fit into either the second or third stud holes from the top of the container and went through both the underlying and overlying container flaps. The other three studs fit into only the top container flap and the rip cord pins fit into them in the normal manner. For the stud attached to the pilot chute, the rip cord pin was inserted in the normal manner and that meant that the pilot chute was attached to the container and could not be released from the container until that rip cord pin had been pulled out. If the pilot chute rip cord pin was not pulled, the parachute could not open.
In my opinion, the NB-6 was not suited for skydiving in the first place. A modification to that canopy would be more difficult and the harness was an "X" type, rather than the usual "H" type, which would complicate attaching a reserve chute. In addition, the NB-6 had a price tag of about twice the standard 28 foot chute due to its being desirable for use as an emergency chute.
So if Cossy managed to put a 28 foot flat canopy into th NB-6 container, he must have been a glutton for punishment. Why bother messing up a good NB-6 when there were plenty of other $40 28 foot flat canopies that did not exceed the performance of the 26 foot conical canopy?
Robert
In my opinion, the NB-6 was not suited for skydiving in the first place. A modification to that canopy would be more difficult and the harness was an "X" type, rather than the usual "H" type, which would complicate attaching a reserve chute. In addition, the NB-6 had a price tag of about twice the standard 28 foot chute due to its being desirable for use as an emergency chute.
So if Cossy managed to put a 28 foot flat canopy into th NB-6 container, he must have been a glutton for punishment. Why bother messing up a good NB-6 when there were plenty of other $40 28 foot flat canopies that did not exceed the performance of the 26 foot conical canopy?
Robert
georger 197
Quoting the chemical composition of silk is something I could have found on Google myself.
Then why didnt you? Facts are everything.
Otherwise just claim Himmelsbach planted the chute
and Barb Dayton was the owner?
You arent entitled to make things up ?
To date, the Copper case is 90% soap opera and
about 1% facts, with all of the predictable consequences. It's like a competition between
the biggest liars and promoters ... who will say and
do anything for 1 minute of fame.
Brilliance will never solve this case. Perspective
does have a chance of making some progress.
That has always been the case and always will be
the case. Soap operas never solve anything!
georger 197
QuoteWhat are you trying to accomplish?
No I haven't talked to anybody. And I am an analytical chemist and can easily tell the difference between silk and nylon also.
The fact is tha no parachute made in the U.S. in 1946 was made of silk. Many people call it silk. I very much doubt that any 'authortative' source has called it silk. Only civilian, news or uninformed officials. If you care to point me to a lap report that says otherwise I'll be glad to read it. And figure out why it is wrong.
The parachute in the photo I attached IS nylon, by definition of what it is and when it was made. Many people automatically either believe a parachute is silk or call it silk generically. That's all I've ever seen.
An FBI agent calling it silk doesn't mean squat. An FBI lab testing it and saying it was silk would mean more. If that exits let me know.
Here is a description on ebay right now of a parachute that never saw a silk worm in its imagination. The seller calls it silf several times.
"For auction is a 35-foot, Type MC1, olive drab Silk Parachute with canvas carrying bag. The canopy has what appear to be two professional patches. There is one large (about 12” – all pieces intact, clean) tear and a few small tears. I’ve tried to take photos of all tears and patches. The date of manufacture, by Mills Mfg. Co., is October 1973 (stamped on canopy). "
http://cgi.ebay.com/Silk-Parachute-MC1-35-ft-Canopy-w-Bag-1973-Olive-Drab-/280557935037?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item41528e59bd
Believe me or not. Anyone saying it is silk is uninformed or misinformed. All I'm trying to accomplish is to correct errorneous statements. It is not silk. It is nylon. It could easily have been in service in the skydiving community in the 60's. It would survive burying for 37 years. White would stain to tan. The other number is the contract number. More information is on the opposite side of the canopy if it wasn't cut off to use it as a skydiving parachute. These are all facts simply based on the date of manufacturer in the photo (And it is the DOM, not a repack date or even an in service date)
I KNOW these things by knowing parachutes. If I could examine it I might learn more. Examining or seeing photos of the rest of the find that this was cutaway from would be useful.
I have NO dog in this fight. Just trying to add some real information, not repeated wrong statements.
Is it Cooper's? I don't know.
Added.. I hadn't seen the photo of the pink parachute but just looked at it. Who cares? It is of little importance. The pink is most likely and pretty obviously a home done dye job. Someone probably tried to dye it red and got pink. Nylon is very hard to dye at home. It was common in the 60's to dye surplus equipment so it looked "cool". Usually the container was dyed black.
BTW the FBI trying to tie the Amboy chute to an NB-6 is not particularly useful. As a military chute an NB-6 would have had a 26' nylon conical parachute. I could give you the part numbers. But, as a skydiver rig an NB-6 might very well have had any number of different parachutes in it. IF it is a Navy conical original to an NB-6, AND that's mildly interesting. But main parachutes, even then, were mix and match. Containers and mains were not necessarily kept together. An examination by a rigger with some knowledge of round parachutes could very likely tell if it is a 26' Navy canopy, even with the data panel gone. If 1946 records exits the contract number could be looked up to find the part and manufacturer of that contract. I'd assume the FBI tried to do this. Unless they really have never had a rigger talk to them. The accounts of them wanting someone knowledgable about NB-6's to come forward ot help seems silly. Any older rigger familiar with rounds could help.
Cossey said the chute Cooper took had a 28' canopy, not 26. ?
Does anyone know if the FBI dig this site?
Was GPR used to examine the site?
georger 197
Richard Floyd McCoy was completely discounted years ago as a suspect, yet the FBI still has this on their webpage:
Pure nondescriptive historical conjecture on your part. What entitles you to make some sweeping generalisation like this?
What was Cooper's comment about General Robrt E. Lee ?
georger 197
BTW it is entirely reasonable that someone would release the main parachute to keep from being drug or to be able to move more easily faster. And if the money was tied to the harness it would be faster to release the main and start moving with the money attached. But, there should be links, risers and the release hardware at the end of the lines or still buried if it was the lines were cut by who found it as reproted.
Can you please elaborate on this ...
Also please include the scenario of the money being tied around Cooper waste ?
Thanks,
G
georger 197
QuoteReally, Georger...you should do your research better.
"Richard Floyd McCoy was completely discounted years ago as a suspect, yet the FBI still has this on their webpage: (that some agents still think he's a good suspect)
You replied, in part: 'Pure nondescriptive historical conjecture on your part. What entitles you to make some sweeping generalisation like this?'
Easy. The family of Richard Floyd McCoy was able to prove in court that he was NOT in Washington or Oregon at the time of the hijacking. Multiple witnesses, some of them not even family members, all testified McCoy was having Thanksgiving dinner at home and also in town and at home at the time of the Cooper hijacking. He was just a copycat who tried for a bigger payoff a few months later. Also, his personality and the real DB Cooper's were completely different. When McCoy hijacked a different flight, all the witnesses said he was very loud and threatening, and carried a pistol and (later found to be fake) grenade. That's how the wife got the big check from the publishers of 'The Real McCoy' and why those same publishers were ordered to stop publishing the book. You can still get copies, but only used ones.
You can access the court records if you doubt my word. My main point by bringing that up about McCoy is that it shows some folks in the FBI still aren't tuned in to the case any better than the general public.
You also asked about Cooper tying something around his waist.
Tina Mucklow said the last thing she saw was Cooper doing just that. Some of the stories about Cooper have him tying this money bag/briefcase combination to his chest and then jumping. This is ridiculous. It's true I support Kenny Christiansen as a suspect, and it is true Kenny was a former paratrooper. He would have tied the package to a long line, and then the line to his waist. You walk out onto the airstairs, jump off, and then throw the package away from you. Just like paratroopers do...
Clap clap clap! Good performance.
Research?
Your statement was:
""Richard Floyd McCoy was completely discounted years ago as a suspect, yet the FBI still has this on their webpage: (that some agents still think he's a good suspect)".
Nobody is claiming McCoy was Cooper. I certainly am not for all of the reasons you cite and reasons you dont know to cite and parrot. The issue is more complex which is precisely why the FBI still has McCoy mentioned on their site (ok, one reason) ...
and who precisely are these agents you factually state still think McCoy was Cooper ... but more to the point here:
what mileage are you attempting to get by using this? Have you another candidate after Kenny? Where are you rowing to?
and as Ckret said, 'the only thing Kenny had in
common with Cooper was he was male'.
thats the end of the psising contest between you and
what is left of me!
Silk is on the same plane as cotton and wool. If you bury a wool shirt or a pair of jeans a couple of feet under the ground up here, they fall to pieces within a few months.
Glad you are familiar with the find. But the area of China in question is not Egypt or is my geography wrong?
So, fibrous proteins, keratinised proteins, and pure glucose ploymeric cellulose ... all decay at the same rate in wet cold of Washington?
Wool comes from a mamal. Silk comes from a
worm. Cotton comes from a plant. Silk has far greater strength than steel, atomically, correct?
A strand of silk 1 inch thick could raise a 727 (wiki
says).
Would you care to revise your claims about silk?
As far as silk being on the same plane with wool and cotton, well ... my Physics Handbook says otherwise.
The contention is factually absurd.