I've posted about this before, but no one seemed to notice
An FBI memo 11/25/71, summarized all known details
on the page where it described the rigs, it said both back rigs had one or two "burp sacks"
it's the only place "burp sacks" are mentioned

I wonder if "burp sack" was some kind of tracker or exploding dye or
I don't think it's a skydiving or military term??

TWO BACK PACK/CHUTES/CONTAINERS WERE ORDINARY MILITARY TYPE
OLIVE DRAB IN COLOR, TWO TO THREE FEET LONG, FIFTEEN TO EIGHTEEN INCHES WIDE.

NUMBER ONE BACK PACK CHUTE DESCRIBED AS CIVILIAN LUXURY TYPE ,
TAN SOFT COTTON MATERIAL OUTSIDE, TWENTY SIX FOOT white CANOPY INSIDE,
AND HAS A MILITARY CHUTE  INSIDE OF IT
ALSO ONE OR TWO BURP SACKS,
AND USUAL LEAD SEAL.

NUMBER TWO BACK PACK CHUTE WAS A MILITARY NYLON TYPE,
IT, ALSO ONE OR NUMBER TWO BACK
OLIVE DRAB GREEN OUTSIDE,
TWENTY EIGHT FOOT WHITE CANOPY INSIDE
WITH TWO BURP SACKS IN BACK,
LEAD SEAL.
SEALS HAD NOT BEEN PULLED

<redacted> CAN IDENTIFY BOTH

A little more detail in this memo.
it describes the burp sacks in the not-taken rig, as being "in folds"

that sounds like they inserted something?

obscure term,, found a reference to a "vomit bag" but

377
In another FBI memo, they noted info on descent rates of both parachutes.
Evidently they were told the not-taken rig, with a 26 foot canopy had about the same descent rate as the taken rig with a 28 foot canopy

The reason given was because of differences in canopy design.

I think we've noted elsewhere that the Pioneer had a 26 foot canopy? I don't think we decided whether it was conical or flat round

The NB-6 with a 1.1 oz canopy at 28 foot, was probably a standard 28 foot diameter C9???

Recall that Norman claimed he bought both main canopies at a military surplus store.

I've jumped both the USAF 28 Ft C9 and 26 ft Navy Conical. The had, for me, nearly indistinguishable differences in descent rates. I don't ever recall seeing or even hearing about a military 28 ft conical canopy, just flat 28 ft rounds.

The only 28 ft conical canopy I know about was this one, a civilian model. You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

377

We need to use these techniques to analyze the tie
polarized light microscopy (PLM),
X-Ray diffraction (XRD) and
scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

I believe a CIA-led coverup, which is being investigated by Bruce Smith, is the reason why the tie is not being analyzed correctly. There may also be connections to cow mutilations.
Yes, I believe radioactive particles exist on the tie.

Example: the "smashed" particles that Kaye suggests are due to manufacturing causes, are more likely due to the effects of reactions that happened in the Hanford site...Kaye suggests manufacturing, with no comparative pictures or even a suggested process that can produce the "smashed" particles as he suggests. (unless he's suggesting he's looked at the results of flame-spraying Ti in manufacturing?)


The EPA reports, even today, on the Hanford site are shocking.
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

- Nine graphite-moderated, light-water cooled reactors were constructed near the Columbia River in the Hanford 100 Areas over a period of 20 years commencing in 1943 (Carlisle 1996). The production reactors were used to produce plutonium by irradiating metallic uranium fuel elements with neutrons during the fission reaction in the reactor core. Other defense-related radionuclides that were experimented with included:
irradiation of thorium to produce 233U, irradiation of depleted uranium to produce 240Pu, irradiation of neptunium targets to produce 238Pu, and irradiation of americium to produce medical grade 238Pu.

- Radiological hazards included external photon, beta, and neutron exposure from fission products and neutron radiation, and internal exposure to fission and activation products.3

- Seven physical testing, research, and demonstration reactors.

- Five chemical separation plants and associated fuel separation facilities, including the T and B plants, the REDOX plant, the PUREX plant, and U Plant, where radiological hazards included potential for internal and external exposure to a variety of radionuclides.

- "Three facilities for fuel fabrication, i.e., the Uranium Metal Fuels Fabrication facility, the Uranium Metal Extrusion facility, and the Fuel Cladding facility. There were also two  support facilities; the Uranium Storage and Oxide Burner facility and the Reactor Fuel Manufacturing Pilot Plant."

- "Two plutonium finishing facilities, 231-Z (Plutonium Isolation Building) and 234-5Z (Plutonium 18 Finishing Plant Complex) operated at Hanford from 1945 to present. The latter is still involved in 19 plutonium stabilization efforts as a part of the Hanford cleanup program. Both of these complexes are located in the 200-W Area."6\

- Twenty-one research, development, and testing facilities where a variety of exposures to radioisotopes occurred.

- Waste handling and storage facilities, one in each of the 200-W and 200-E areas, a trench facility, a settling tank area, an evaporator facility, chemical separations exhaust filtration facilities, and three liquid waste handling buildings, all providing a potential for external and internal exposure, as well as exposures via the environmental transport pathway.

- Some 2,710 waste disposal sites and burial grounds in the 100, 200, 300, and 1100 Areas,
currently being characterized and remediated. The preponderance of these sites poses radiation exposure risks.

- High-level radioactive waste (HLW) storage in 177 large underground tanks.
 High-level radioactive tank waste stabilization and removal from underground tanks, scheduled for processing and disposal over the next 30 years, pose ongoing risks of exposure to radionuclides.

- An estimated 2,750 surplus facilities, many of which are contaminated with radionuclides, are either scheduled or are now undergoing deactivation, decontamination, and decommissioning.
...
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

One of the primary tasks in the clean up of the Hanford Reservation is the retrieval of waste from single-shell and double-shell storage tanks. The waste will be used as feedstock for the vitrification plant under construction in the Hanford 200 East area. To accomplish this tank waste retrieval, the River Protection Project requires physical and chemical data on the nature of the wastes. For several years, laboratory tests have been conducted at the 222-S Laboratory on the dissolution characteristics of Hanford saltcake waste from single shell tanks (Herting 1998, 1999, 2000,2001).
.
The phase analysis of Tank BY-109' saltcake, described in this report, was conducted using polarized light microscopy (PLM), X-Ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
...
Finally, the SEM located a number of discrete particles of an aluminosilicate phase and a uranium-rich phase, as well as occasional particles of exotic composition, such as chromium-rich, calcium/strontium-rich and bismuth/palladium-rich. These phases were too rare, or too poorly crystalline, to be identified by PLM or XRD analysis.

... I dimly recall something about Norman having bought two identical canopies at a surplus store. Bruce, do you know? If that's true would the canopy in the rig now residing at the WA History Museum tell us what the jumped canopy was? ...

377

Yup. That is what Norman Hayden told me - he provided two identical parachutes to NWO. Since the Not-Used chute is a Pioneer/Steinthaul 26-foot conical, Hayden assumes that DB Cooper used a Pioneer/Steinthaul 26-conical to jump.

Hence, the NB6-NB8 controversy is mute, as is the use of a C-9, etc.

So, yes, examining the Pioneer parachute owned by the WSHM would tell us more about DB Cooper and his jump.

Lastly, Norman told me that he does not remember where he bought his back chutes.

Lastly, lastly, Norman told other researchers, most notably RMB, a different story. Specifically, he told Blevs that he bought a NB-8 military rig and a Pioneer/Steinthaul at a military surplus store. I strongly suspect that Norman told him that to get Bobby B off his back. Or RMB made it up.

Regardless, Norman has stopped talking to any journalists as far as I know. He certainly doesn't talk to me, and I suspect that he is quiet because he is very anxious about negative or controversial publicity. Norman told me that his livelihood and social life is dependent upon the "Country Club Set" not looking down their noses at him and any unpleasantness he might bring into their toney chambers. Norman was very concerned about fueling any animosity with Earl Cossey.

There is a hidden side to Norman Hayden. He lives alone and seems to be cut off from family and any apparent daily social interaction. He lives in his huge machine shop in Renton, WA, converting his old office into a studio apartment. When I was interviewing Norman, a couple of school kids came by and fooled around near the side entrance to the shop. It appeared that they were daily visitors, and Norman was very glad to see them. I sensed that those kids were the only regular company he had.

I attempted to learn more about his family, such as the son that Norman talked about during the interview, whom he said would be establishing a DB Cooper museum featuring the parachute. But I never could get ahold of the son. Later, a woman posted at the Mountain News claiming to be a sister of Norman's and she lambasted him in her commentary in a disjointed, inarticulate, crazy manner, and called him untrustworthy. I tried to make contact with her, but she never responded to my entreaties.

That's what I've got on Norman Hayden.

Norman denies saying any of this. Certainly, "Luxury type" are not his words.

Further, he says that he never spoke to the FBI about the parachutes, other than negotiating the return of the Not-Used parachute.

He certainly denies ever being consulted about the parachutes by the FBI, ie: 28-ft, military, etc., and he had no participation in this document or any other.

He was adamant about this. When I read the summary report out-loud to him, he was aghast, realizing that the investigation was so fubar'd. He slumped in his chair in a kind of existential despair.

John Detlor

Former SA John Detlor wrote the parachute summary report. John is still alive and participated in the History Channel Docu. During the filming he was particular chatty and began responding to my emails, but when he asked me to specify what I wanted to talk about - I mentioned the parachute summary, the death of Earl Cossey, Charlie Farrell's unpublished 300-page treatise on Norjak, etc. - he clammed up totally.

Of the many mistakes and errors of judgment that the LMNO crew made in the production of the HC Docu, One Big One was not asking John about this parachute summary report when they had him in front of their cameras.

I had lengthy discussions with the LMNO production team about this and similar goofs, and they generally agreed with me and said that they would re-film major portions of the docu and allow me to interview the folks they were putting in front of their cameras, like John, Tina, and most importantly Tom Fuentes, the host of the show and the former Deputy Director for the FBI.

That never happened, as we know.

It's Major Crapola like this that fuels my interest in digging further, such as investigating the cattle mutilations across the street from T-Bar. They certainly happened, but the who, how and why are still unknown, which begs the question: how big is the cover-up? If the USG has guys cutting up cows on the north side of Lower River Rd, who's to say those fellows are planting twenties in the sand riverside?