smokin99

Drawing by Dave Gold, one of literally thousands of parachute-related items now at Wright.edu in their Dave Gold Parachute Collection. You can find the PDF by searching on Dave Gold, etc. Date of the drawing by Gold is 1948. So your guess at 1953 could be correct. First thing I thought when I saw the massive, literally unending list of Gold's parachute-related collection was this: I'll bet every jumper at DZ already knows this guy. He might even have reached godlike status by now. I think Wright actually has a museum for his stuff. I saw something about the boxes they keep it all in stretched out over a hundred feet in length. Yes, I think it is a fairly well-known collection if you've ever searched for the words parachute and history in the same string. The mother lode, but I think the problem is finding much on line (other than the index of what's in the collection at Wright). but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

If the pics are too big I will delete.. The main point that I see in all of this at the end of the day is that there is decent documentation that Cossey at least packed the parachutes. In that sense they were "his" chutes and he was the "go to" guy because he packed them and he was the "master rigger" with knowledge of parachutes. As I've said before I think the fish got bigger and bigger and why let a few details spoil a good story. LOL -- why some folks on here would have a problem with that is beyond me. It also looks like his name is on the chest container. Someone with better eyes than I will have to come up with the date though for some reason I think I see Oct 1953. [inline Parachute_Bag.jpg] [inline PBcloseup.jpg] but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

I know details and accuracy aren't important to some folks that have a habit of just throwing any ole thing out there, but just to set the record straight..... Robert, You said that Bruce did not "steal" the parachute document from Gray and that the document has been on the vault for years. Then you gave the impression that you presented it here to uncover some truth. If you can prove otherwise from the below please do. The parachute document was originally posted here at the dropzone as a jpg attachment of a screenshot, by 377 who received it from snowmman. I posted a link to the actual pdf shortly thereafter. The pdf originated from Geoff Grays Hunt for DB Cooper web site project files which apparently he inadvertently? or not? left unprotected. After it was posted here, and set off a LOT of discussion, Gray closed access and, if memory serves, proceeded to post an article about it on his website. So.... since it was not found anywhere else I'm assuming Geoff copied it from the FBI files (those same files that you said he didn't copy and was only able to look at), and Bruce likely got it from either Geoff's site or here. Apparently, since Geoff is walking around free and hasn't been charged with purloining/distributing classified government property and/or "active case file data", I will also assume that he didn't steal it and/or had permission to copy it. Either way -- the only FBI vault that I am aware of related to Mr. Cooper "primarily" has a bunch of useless stuff like newspaper articles many of which are basically unreadable excerpts that you can read a lot easier elsewhere. Even the money list is easier viewed in Tosaw's book if you are inclined to go looking for old twenties. Pretty sure that vault has never contained the parachute document. Those same 7 pdfs have been there forever. And....just a reminder...what everyone thought was "found" news that had never been uncovered before (just like the Dan Cooper comic connection) was actually reported on in newspaper articles before the internet was a twinkle in Al Gore's eye. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

lol.... then you'll fit right in with the rest of us.

lol.... then you'll fit right in with the rest of us.

At this point we don't have enough information to know whether he was right or wrong. Additionally, the FBI said that Cossey was not the only source they relied upon.. whether you believe them or not, or spin anything else that they said -- it was reported that other experts were consulted. And please....... I know all of your arguments -- they just aren't sustainable. As for as them saying it is still evidence in a case, I think that is just their standard response: on-going case and can't comment. Face it, unfortunately, they don't have to tell us anything. Actually, I have to hand it to the Seattle FBI for answering my very occasional questions. They return the email, they call the office. It was only when I asked about the Amboy chute that they told me it was still evidence. I'm a fairly straightforward guy. My next question would be, 'How could it be evidence if it was dismissed as evidence five years ago?' Makes sense to me.

Yes, I remember reading this. And he is probably right as far as nylon was the norm for parachutes and overall, silks were gone. I'm certainly not an expert, but I just don't think it is historically accurate as to manufacturing, sale, or export of silk chutes fro the mills. Yes by 1946, the majority of manufacturers had crossed over, but not all. I looked at some mfg data, export, and government data when all this was discussed way back when and it "appears" that some mills were still mfg real silk parachutes in 1946. But hey, maybe that was leftover inventory and they went on and used it instead of cutting it all up into hankies. LOL...I just think about betamax. Think how long that tried to hang around after it was clear they were gone. Okay maybe that analogy is a stretch, but think about it from a mfg point of view. When nylon came around it didn't just appear when all the silk was gone and all of a sudden overnight everyone is using this great new stuff. Nylon had to be tested. ........So it's tested and Now it's the new thing, but you aren't gong to be able to switch overnight. Even after you do switch, what are you gonna do with the leftover silk - that's a lot of scarves......so you call up Joe who you happen to know in procurement for the forestry service and say you've got some old chutes in the back that are already sewn up.....make you a good deal. Silk worked 4 years ago...it still works. Maybe it's the cultural goggles thing but I just can't imagine that everything turned on a dime back then.... And then again, I could be wrong. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

At this point we don't have enough information to know whether he was right or wrong. Additionally, the FBI said that Cossey was not the only source they relied upon.. whether you believe them or not, or spin anything else that they said -- it was reported that other experts were consulted. And please....... I know all of your arguments -- they just aren't sustainable. As for as them saying it is still evidence in a case, I think that is just their standard response: on-going case and can't comment. Face it, unfortunately, they don't have to tell us anything. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Well first - if we are talking history I think it's is pretty important to be accurate. logic says ... if you say that he cannot summarily dismiss it based on historical events....., then you need to be accurate in your assessment of those historical events. I don't know if it was silk. It could have been first gen nylon, but I do not rule out that it was a cargo chute made of silk in 1946. Or even that it was a chute that was sewn prior to 46 and serialized when it was harnessed or sold. I also believe this -- regardless of the actions by the FBI regarding the Amboy chute.... or who did or did not look at it, I believe that a master rigger should know something about chute material. I might be wrong, but I don't think you can totally dismiss Cossey's credentials in this area. And I also don't think you can believe everything you read. "Yeah I knew in the first ten seconds it wasn't the chute" is probably just Earl Cossey posturing for the media. I will admit he did a lot of that. But yes, it is my admittedly non-expert opinion that the Amboy chute close-up did not look like the material poking out of the chute that Sailshaw had a picture of -- that I believe he said was Hayden's. (And before you go there -I'm not talking about the color, condition, etc.) Hey not that we will ever be told anyway, but I might be wrong. It happens occasionally

.......... On a simpler point, one of the reasons I never believed the dismissal of the chute based on Cossey's 'It's silk, and the one I gave to Cooper was nylon...' Is because after December 7, 1941 silk production and importation virtually ceased in the United States for some years afterward. The chute is almost certainly not made of silk, and that explanation for dismissal appears in article after article about it. It simply doesn't make sense. There you go again. I'm no silk expert but this is just historically inaccurate. First, US production of silk has never been much of a success. That is why we had to import it from other countries, principally Japan. Second. The US ceasing import of Japanese silk did not mean that all of the stores of silk in the United States disappeared overnight. Actually what happened in 1941 is that the US government froze the imports and commandeered all existing US companies inventories of silk. The existing stock was mandated for government use only for things like parachutes, surgical sutures, electrical insulation. Processing silk for civilian use was prohibited. Over the next few years, as the supply dwindled, they had to come up with an alternative. This still did not mean that silk chutes totally disappeared as some companies used up their supply while others quickly re-tooled for the new material. According to export records, we were also still supplying some other countries with silk parachute cloth in the mid to late 40s. I have posted all of this before as well as documentation that showed that while limited, silk parachutes were still being manufactured in some mills in the mid 40s. But really - even if the chute was not silk and was a first generation nylon - in the pictures it did not look like rip-stop nylon - even to my untrained eye. If the chutes supplied to the hijacker were made of the material that was shown at the Washington historical exhibit that Sailsaw posted....then all the wishes in the world won't turn it into what has been photographed as the Amboy chute. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Something's hinky with my firefox tonight - not loading pages all the way - guess it's telling me I need to get off the internet and go to bed -- only read the first part but looks to be very interesting so far. Anyway ...I got my copy - just saving it for the weekend. Dead tired from staying up too late wrestlin alligators and swimming with sharks. (lol...and no I'm not talking about Blevins - I'm doing taxes and then trying to do a full day at the coal mine. Us girls never get a break. Anyway -- looking good so far! but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Well, you asked the same damn question three times, like I'm your personal Google researcher... Then when I took the time to screenshot and edit the actual email I sent the Seattle FBI...where it mentions I referenced the articles... You didn't even bother with an answer. So next time, don't bother asking. Save us both a lot of time.

lol...Good night, for real this time. I'm betting myself 100 dollars to my favorite charity that I will respond if he posts again. lol...got to see how strong the addiction is....... but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Notice she doesn't say anything about anyone being allowed to examine the chute in person. ***'...from the people we SPOKE to...' In fact, when Cossey saw it, they actually put it into the trunk of a car and drove it to his house. Look, if you don't believe that's how it went down with the investigation into the chute, you should inquire with the FBI. I never said what I believe, Robert. I just said that you were claiming something that didn't have any basis is fact. By no definition is "speaking to someone" exclusive to a telephone. Dang, you just lost your charity 100 easy dollars. I knew you couldn't resist, but I actually had a infinitesimal twinge of surprise... or maybe it was disappointment that some poor rescued cats might now miss a meal.

I fully support this book, Bruce....and then all that other stuff. Lord, have mercy. This is not funny, and I gave Bruce good advice. Go ahead and review the book, give it a glowing five stars without a comprehensive reason why...see what happens. ............................................................................................................ I'm constantly amazed and astounded. I didn't say it was funny, Robert, and I don't doubt that you can and will give him all the advice that he can stomach. And I'm not disavowing any accomplishments or knowledge you have -- if I remember correctly you learned about shill reviews the hard way -- but who in the world said anything about giving him shill reviews or that they give a rat's eyeball whether you support him or not. To be honest, I just thought that it was kind of pathetic that Bruce comes on here very excited about his new book, and you start in on what he should do or shouldn't do and how you know best, and he better check this and check that because it sounds like he might be wrong, and you know it because yada yada, yada whatever --- instead of just, for once ---At least for your first response --- offering a simple "congratulations, Bruce" and being done with it. No offense, Robert, but everything is just not all about you. Sometimes less is more. Good night. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

I've addressed this before. 'When I asked them later,' means when I called them and emailed about the Amboy chute in 2012 I think. Maybe it was last year, I forget at the moment. I got one email back, one phone call return. There IS an article out there somewhere stating that experts were consulted by PHONE...and I have seen comments about this over at the alternate site as well. Look...some articles Cossey claims to have owned and delivered the chutes to the airport. That is a given. Others he is quoted as just packing them. That can be checked. It is also a fact that Cossey based his decision on his 'It is silk and the one I gave to Cooper was nylon'. That statement appears in a lot of the articles, as well as "I knew it wasn't the right chute in less than ten seconds". What do you want from me? I saw a post from you on page 2014 where you say 'everyone wants to re-address the Amboy chute' or close to that. So maybe you should ask the Seattle FBI as I did. Cossey's non-ownership and non-delivery of the chutes is a fact. The real question is whether his instant dismissal can be relied on as the final answer to the Amboy chute. And on that one, I just don't know. It would have helped if the FBI had given something to media on their decision beyond 'a totality of the information' which is basically a non-answer. .... You only got that from what I wrote....lol...okay I'll try one more time. What I would like from you is what I said....just once...to back up what you say with something verifiable. Just trying to go the source and question everything, Robert. Now you say you asked the FBI and they "admitted" to you that they only talked with these experts by phone. Robert, I guess I just don't believe you. AND yes, before you tell me....I realize that you don't care what I think.....lol....honestly - it might be true that they did only talk to them by phone - but what I'm saying is that your statement that they said this in a published report has never been verified by showing the article!! As I said, re: his claim of ownership - I stand corrected to the extent that Bruce has or will publish reports of Cossey saying "I owned the chutes and I delivered the chutes". I will give you that, but I still submit that it will be difficult to find published articles from other news media - especially of the day -- where Cossey is QUOTED as stating "I owned the chutes and delivered them". In the excerpt I posted it is obvious that he was referring to this ownership in the vein of "yes, they're mine because I put them together." To refresh your memory or in case you missed it, the following excerpt from the Oregonian, dated November 26, 1971.. The parachute backpack on which the hijacker depended was a new rig specifically made for stunt fliers, not skydivers and had never been used, "Yep, that's my chute," said Earl Cossey, president of Seattle Sky Sports when the parachute and harness were described to him. Both backpacks supplied the hijacker were made by Cossey, but owned by Norman Hayden, a stunt pilot at Renton Aviation Co. lol....but you know what -- lucky for you, I'm done with this. Going in for an dropzone intervention. I will give you that he claimed ownership in a backhanded way. Hell....I'm feeling the wine, I mean magnanimous --- so I will even give you that he claimed this outright to other news media besides Bruce if you need that. This is a silly argument when the end result is the same. But I do not feel bad about trying to keep you and the narrative honest. So the takeaway: (lol... I hate that buzzword) Call Ol Coss a liar and a fraud, and try to pretend that he is irrelevant. What I say is that he is most likely a victim of human frailty -- in that the fish just kept getting bigger and bigger. Kind of reminds me of some other folks I know. Yet and still, his non-ownership / non-delivery and/or misrepresentation of same does NADA to change the fact that his knowledge of the parachutes, as a master rigger of those chutes, was superior to that of someone that never used and likely never saw the chutes. Tunnel vision just prevents you from giving credit where credit is due. And, as Forrest Gump says - that's all I've got to say about that. lol....and I bet you one hundred dollars to your favorite charity that you cannot pass this up without having the last word.... but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

I fully support this book, Bruce....and then all that other stuff. Lord, have mercy. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Congratulations Bruce!! but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

I spoke with Cossey several times from 2009-2011, and every time we spoke he adamantly claimed that he owned the chutes. He even told me that Northwest Orient paid him for the two back chutes. He also adamantly claimed that he had sent the two back chutes off to Boeing Field, and the last time I spoke with him I asked him why he sent them to the wrong airport, he shouted "Fuck You" and slammed the phone down. He's claimed these same things in the media over the years in articles. Several times. Some of the more recent references are in articles related to the Amboy chute discovery. This is one of the reasons I continue to question his quick dismissal of the Amboy chute. One article quotes him as saying, "I knew it wasn't Cooper's in less than ten seconds..." after the FBI brought it to his house in the trunk of a car. That was on a Thursday or a Friday I believe. By early the following week, the Seattle FBI wrote off the chute with their pithy 'by a totality of the information' explanation, which was in reality...no explanation at all. When I asked them about the whole thing later, they admitted that the 'other experts' were only consulted by telephone. Go figure. First Robert, as to the Amboy chute, you said that it was reported via news article or conference that "they" admitted that the other experts were only consulted by phone. And you have never produced said article even though you said you would. I believe this is the first time that you have posted "when I asked them about the whole thing later". Very convenient to take something that you can verify into the realm of "cause I said so"..... Maybe it's just me, but credibility suffers every time you change your story. As I have posted before, I have no doubt that time and ego got the better of Earl Cossey as it has claimed other principals in the case - and, obviously I stand corrected to the extent that Bruce has or will publish reports of Cossey saying "I owned the chutes and I delivered the chutes". I will give you that. However, I still submit that it will be difficult to impossible to find published articles from the news media - especially of the day -- where Cossey is QUOTED stating "I owned the chutes and delivered them". If you can find them, I will give you that. The fact is , in all of the articles I have found, with the exception of one, Cossey has never been quoted as saying this, it is always just assumed by the writer to be a given. Just as they always say it was a horribly dark, freezing, and and stormy night, they also write, "Earl Cossey, the man who supplied the chutes......." I agree that he never corrects them and allows them to write whatever - but show me news media (other than Bruce's articles) where he says it outright. I'm not doubting you - I'd just, for once, like you to back up what you say with something verifiable. Just trying to go the source and question everything, Robert. But back to Cossey, all of the articles of the day that I have found only say he packed the chutes, except one. And the one article that I could find when he was quoted as saying anything about ownership it was obvious that he was referring to this ownership in the vein of "yes, they're mine because I put them together." AS per the example I gave of the painting I did that someone else owns. And as per the following excerpt from the Oregonian, dated November 26, 1971.. The parachute backpack on which the hijacker depended was a new rig specifically made for stunt fliers, not skydivers and had never been used, "Yep, that's my chute," said Earl Cossey, president of Seattle Sky Sports when the parachute and harness were described to him. Both backpacks supplied the hijacker were made by Cossey, but owned by Norman Hayden, a stunt pilot at Renton Aviation Co. So there you go.....call him a liar and a fraud, but I still maintain that lack of ownership and/or misrepresentation of same does nothing to change the fact that his knowledge of the parachutes, as a master rigger of those chutes, was superior to that of someone that never used and likely never saw the chutes. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

That is their choice. People can be mercurial on the internet. Of course I read what people write. I've edited about sixty books in my part-time career doing that. You want an example on Cossey and the chutes and the claims that have gone for years? Here's one of the most recent. One of dozens in the media since God-knows-when. ***'While the plane was flying to Sea-Tac, an airport manager called a now-defunct Issaquah sky-diving school. Instructor Earl Cossey, now a retired junior high school teacher, packed a Navy-issue NB6 and delivered that parachute with three others...' That one is from the November 24, 2014 article by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer. This one even claims he packed a chute that was already packed, and actually in the possession of Norman Hayden at the time. Says he delivered all FOUR chutes. If you do a solid check, you'll also find that Cossey claimed these same things in telephone interviews over the years. If you don't believe the article(s) are accurate, then the place to go is the source who published the article and challenge its accuracy. I don't just make this stuff up, you know.

Actually, there are plenty of examples where Cossey claims ownership of the chutes and says he delivered them to the airport. If you are willing to dismiss facts in the case and simply 'go along' with something, even if it is untrue, then you will get exactly nowhere finding any real answers. QUESTION EVERYTHING.

The basic parameters have been offered - just because I object to someone proclaiming "truths" based on pure speculation on those parameters does not make me a drone. I question plenty, as do others. -- but I don't insist my speculations must be "true" in order to skew the outcome. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Yes, I hear you on this. Here's a problem, though: Cossey also claimed for years he actually DELIVERED the chutes to SeaTac, and that is not true either. From all accounts, his only involvement was a phone call where he directed them to Linn Emerick. But he has claimed for years he owned the chutes that Hayden owned...and delivered them. Neither of those things are true. Why he did all that and continued feeding that line to the press for years is beyond my understanding. He also dismissed the Amboy chute in seconds when the FBI showed up at his house with it in the trunk of a car. I've already given you a reasonable explanation for ownership - Show me in an article where Earl Cossey is "quoted" as saying I actually delivered the chutes in a vehicle to the airport. I don't know for sure but I don't think that you can. And, if you can, tomorrow I will show you accounts of eye witnesses and or principals in this case and other cases who, as the years go by took on a higher profile in the case then was apparent at the time. As time goes on, our memories change, our egos expand every time we are called by a newspaper reporter or CBS news, and our part in the production gradually goes from being a grip to having a starring role. That is human nature, and if you think Earl Cossey or the co-pilot or anyone else that was eager or willing to talk to reporters was immune to it then you are likely wrong. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

Smokin99: Or it shows that he planned the hijacking and knew it from looking at a map. As Robert99 notes, the only factual conclusion that can be drawn is that Cooper knew the approximate driving time from McChord AFB to SEATAC. There is nothing that says how he knew this and you definitely have nothing to make this "almost certain". Speculation that he took the flight previously is only speculation that he took the flight previously. Tells us nothing about where he was from or his personal familiarity with the area. Plus maybe he did take a previous flight but maybe it was to familiarize himself with sights and distances so that he could make them THINK he was from the area? For someone that lives in that area you should know that there have been numerous reports of whole planes going missing and have never been found. Google it. See response to number 2 – in addition to planes, also google bones found in Washington and Oregon and how long the person had been missing/dead before they were found. I agree with Robert99 – meaningless unless it turns up tomorrow in his boney hand. if he threw it out ahead of his jump, which is the only time that he could have thrown it out if he didn’t take it with him, what would this narrow down? If he threw it out when he first opened the door, it could be far away from where he finally jumped. I agree that his intention was most likely to jump pretty soon after takeoff, and one indication of that could be that he requested that the stairs be down -- but it is not the only reason he might have made this request, and you definitely can't make the leap that this makes it likely he was from the Puget Sound area. You are making speculations and labeling them as probable truths based on nothing. Where he wanted to jump could have been solely based on what he had researched and planned to do and nothing at all with where he was from. Cossey, as a master rigger, and the one who packed the chutes was in the better position to identify the chutes than the owner, who says he never used the chute. I ‘ve already given logical rasons why Cossey said that they were his chutes, but that is really not relevant as to whether he was in the better position of describing and/or identifying the chutes. Additionally, the FBI did not “admit” to only talking to other experts by phone. That is something you claim from piecing together articles, and making supposition but it never actually says that. The primary articles say that “the conclusion was based on a totality of the evidence, and NOT just the opinion of Cossey, …..that several other experts who stepped forward after the find were consulted.” Please provide proof that the FBI ever admits that additional experts were “only” consulted by phone. Speculation no doubt based on wishful thinking. It’s also been speculated that there are aliens in refrigeration at Area 51. Jeez for you to even put that on a list titled 10 things we can assume to be true is just plain silly. I imagine the lowest point of his life if he lived, was that he didn’t get to keep all (or maybe any) of the money. If he did worry, which we have no way of knowing -- he has no doubt relaxed now since he still hasn’t been found. And I hate to tell you (from your response to R99 - but federal judges ave been known to bypass the Constitution more than a few times. That’s why cases are overturned in appeal and supreme courts. Unless he is being held down by trees or other obstacles. Items that enter the Columbia River might wash up, but many are also just never found. Again – google Columbia River suspected drownings and boat wrecks and you will find multiple instances where the body and debris was never found. I will agree on parts of this one - there have been multiple witness descriptions of the weather . As to the hijacker's demeanor, I think only Himmelsbach subscribes to the theory that he was overall abusive and threatening (though I don’t remember if those are his words). The crew makes reference to one or two instances when the hijacker was forceful and getting upset - example when he thought they were stalling, - but overall Flo and Tina spent the most time with him and they say that he was not the nasty character that Himmelsbach claims. I believe words like calm and polite were used. As for the descriptions: the three attendants' descriptions - which I believe the most weight should be given to: Flo said 6 feet - 6'1"". Tina said 5-ten to 6 feet. As for the suit – dark brown with a black stripe might actually look black to someone. I think we can safely say the suit was dark, the shirt was white, and the tie was black. Additionally, both Tina and Flo said straight hair – Flo said parted on left, Tina said narrow sideburns. We are not told whether they differed with each other on the sideburns and part. AS for dk brown or black - hair - again I think that this can be safely described as dark brown/black without any quibble. In certain light and to certain people, dark brown looks black. As a child my hair was so black that it looked blue. As I got older it changed to more of a darkest brown but people still called it black. Point being I don't think it would have made my description wrong if someone said black or dk brown- it had elements of both. As for the eyes, I have been doing an experiment for a couple of years (unscientific I know -- but most people that I have asked (and I've asked quite a few) describe even dark hazel eyes as hazel though a few have said hazel brown as opposed to hazel green) - but no one has ever said that a person with any degree of hazel was brown - they always preface it with "hazel". As for identikit differences, Geoff’s book only gives complete identikit info for Alice Hancock, I don’t think he gave complete info for Flo and none for Tina - though I'm basing that on memory. I'm not well versed in each of the identikit numbers, are you? Is Gray? Gray alludes that the descriptions are different because of the different identikit numbers - but how do you or Geoff know that the numbers they chose aren’t virtually identical except for some small something? As far as I know, there is nothing that Gray reports - other than the one other passenger description - that changes the basic / general description that was given out at the beginning. That’s what a composite is – you take the most relevant and most cited descriptions and go from there. But aside from that, I don't know if there is anything to suggest that the original description that the FBI originally put out was grossly incorrect. Having said that -- when I first read the original article on KC by Gray, I thought he favored the composite. I still do, but I can’t make the descriptive stuff that doesn’t fit go away – nor can I or you do anything more than speculate about KC's role in a hijacking. If we want to assume speculations as truth, then Tina probably saw the guy standing the most and in the closest proximity – plus she had herself as a measuring stick -- so by that reasoning, why not say that the hijacker had to be taller than 5’10? Most of the 10 things you say that we can assume to be true are just pure speculation and no more or less probable than that. Really, don't you think this case has enough myths without proclamations of what "we" can assume to be true without any basis in fact. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill

1 and 2: Ultimately in this case, the relevance of being the one who owned or delivered the chutes vs the guy that packed the parachutes is essentially nil. From 377: "As an FAA licensed rigger he would have filled out packing cards which remain with the chutes in special pockets designed to hold them. He would have entered, among other data, the date of the inspection/repack and his name and FAA number. The packing card would have listed the type and size of the canopy. He also would have threaded a ripcord pin and pin receiving cone with breakable twine and sealed the joined ends with a lead seal bearing symbols that would uniquely identify him." Maybe the person that did all of that lead sealing that uniquely ids him as the re-packer considers all of his chutes "my chutes". Kind of like if I design an outfit, you may own the outfit, but I still consider it mine in a weird sort of way. Like, "Norm has one of my chutes". You at least have to take into consideration that you might be hung up on semantics about ownership when it is quite possible that Earl Cossey, as a master rigger who handled and packed the chutes, knew more about the parachutes than Norman Hayden who, by his own account, had never used it. but....A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.....Winston Churchill