Author Topic: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes  (Read 75742 times)

georger

  • Guest
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #75 on: December 21, 2014, 03:25:35 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It could be something as simple as a CYA.

When "classified" JFK documents were released, some of them shouldn't have ever been classified.  Some were newspaper clippings and other public information.

If the FBI is still holding the chute, maybe they aren't sure.  If they release it and it turns out to be the Cooper chute, they end up with egg on their face.  If they hold onto it, they can't be embarrassed if it turns out it's not the Cooper chute because nobody will ever know.

They keep it because it's evidence - evidence of something if not the Cooper chute which they seem convinced it isn't.

There are several problems with Blevins quick-theory. #1: They aren't sure it is Wallings' chute.

Quote: "The date stamped on the found parachute -- Feb. 21, 1946 -- is the repacking date, not the packing date, Hanson said. Local military historian John "Cye" Laramie said last week that date was the only thing questionable about linking it to Walling's crash."

The FBI hasn't claimed it is Wallings' chute, so what is Blev upset about? Blev is saying it is Wallings' chute or it is Cooper's chute as if those are the only choices which they are not.
Opinion is split.  Several say it isn't, one says it probably is Wallings', and the FBI say's they don't know, and a whole bunch of other people who are undecided ... but it is not Cooper's chute in event because it is SILK!  and Blevins says "give us the lab report!" Who is Blevins in this! 

#2: Quote: "Walling walked about eight miles until he came near the town of Yale, about nine miles from Amboy, the following day.  "He had followed a creek for the last part and we found him near Reese's store," said Howard Hanson, who was an Army Air Force lieutenant assigned to search for Walling. "We wanted to find out exactly where he landed, but he was really confused and noncommittal after being out there." 

Where is Reese's store? Is that in Yale or outside of Yale some distance? Blevins ignores that.

So perhaps Wallings did swim a river to get to that creek? That would answer Blevins' second expert objection. Wallings himself didn't seem to know where he had landed! We don't know the route Wallings took and Wallings never identified his landing place where he walked to Reese's store from! Wallings could have landed someplace else and the Amboy chute isn't Wallings or DB Cooper's, but someone else's chute! 

Either Blevins account is true, or it is false. My bet is Blevins has jumped to conclusions again, before all of the facts are known, which is what Blevins always does. Blevins has raised a straw man again based on incomplete facts and then advertises it to the hilt as if his version was true!

If Wallings' didn't know where he had landed how in hell does Blevins know where Wallings landed!? Blevins assumes Wallings had to cross a river or Lake Merwin. The fact is, nobody knows and the FBI isn't claiming it knows either.
 
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

 ;)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 04:14:24 AM by georger »
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7636
  • Thanked: 723 times
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #76 on: December 21, 2014, 08:36:39 AM »
Ok, so it seems it was Hanson who made the claim that it could possibly be Wallings chute. I thought it was a reporter. the report doesn't give to many details about the crash. I have the report, but it's hard to read. if anyone wishes to see it, just PM, or email me. the plane "unwitnessed crash approx, a mile and a half north of Yale Wash," Wallings was given a violation for not following weather conditions and landing at the nearest airport. he bailed from 18,000 feet.

Basically, Robert is trying to go against Hanson vs the FBI. Hanson probably doesn't know where the chute was actually found other than what is reported. according to Carr it's not very close to Amboy to begin with. Hanson is trying to recall something from about 63 years ago. I don't see where he needs to hike miles to make it to the chute the FBI has. Hanson could easily be mistaken with his conclusions.

The way I read the article from the Seattle PI is the FBI heard this story, and agreed "it's definitely possible"

How long has the chute been there? it doesn't have to be Wallings chute, and it doesn't have to of been in the ground since 1945, or 1971, or even 2000. it's speculation stating when it was buried.

Below is a photo of the Amboy chute with it's markings, and another cargo chute with similar markings. these seem to differ from personal chutes with stamped markings on them.

Amboy chute is on the left.
« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 10:28:26 AM by shutter »
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7636
  • Thanked: 723 times
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #77 on: December 21, 2014, 10:34:18 AM »
The second page of the report is a little easier to read. (see photo)

 
 

Robert99

  • Guest
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #78 on: December 21, 2014, 01:16:19 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok, so it seems it was Hanson who made the claim that it could possibly be Wallings chute. I thought it was a reporter. the report doesn't give to many details about the crash. I have the report, but it's hard to read. if anyone wishes to see it, just PM, or email me. the plane "unwitnessed crash approx, a mile and a half north of Yale Wash," Wallings was given a violation for not following weather conditions and landing at the nearest airport. he bailed from 18,000 feet.

Basically, Robert is trying to go against Hanson vs the FBI. Hanson probably doesn't know where the chute was actually found other than what is reported. according to Carr it's not very close to Amboy to begin with. Hanson is trying to recall something from about 63 years ago. I don't see where he needs to hike miles to make it to the chute the FBI has. Hanson could easily be mistaken with his conclusions.

The way I read the article from the Seattle PI is the FBI heard this story, and agreed "it's definitely possible"

How long has the chute been there? it doesn't have to be Wallings chute, and it doesn't have to of been in the ground since 1945, or 1971, or even 2000. it's speculation stating when it was buried.

Below is a photo of the Amboy chute with it's markings, and another cargo chute with similar markings. these seem to differ from personal chutes with stamped markings on them.

Amboy chute is on the left.

I don't know how the repacking of cargo parachutes is documented, but ALL military or civilian parachutes for pilots and crew members that I have ever personally seen had a packing card in a pocket on the outside of the container or on the harness.  These parachutes had to be repacked a regular intervals and that repacking, plus any other pertinent information, was documented on that packing card.

The dates and numbers on the parachutes shown above by Shutter could be their original manufacture dates and contract numbers or they could represent dates of repairs or modifications to the canopies and the authorization for that work.  Also, I would not expect to find a "harness" on a cargo parachute.

In my opinion, the hassle over the Amboy and Walling parachutes is meaningless.  Immediately following World War 2, tens of thousands of surplus personnel and cargo parachute canopies were sold, or given, to the general public and various institutions.  Even in the early 1960s, you could buy personnel parachute canopies and other equipment that had been manufactured during WW2 and was still in its unopened shipping box from the manufacturer.  I believe 377 can confirm this.

 

georger

  • Guest
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #79 on: December 21, 2014, 04:17:18 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok, so it seems it was Hanson who made the claim that it could possibly be Wallings chute. I thought it was a reporter. the report doesn't give to many details about the crash. I have the report, but it's hard to read. if anyone wishes to see it, just PM, or email me. the plane "unwitnessed crash approx, a mile and a half north of Yale Wash," Wallings was given a violation for not following weather conditions and landing at the nearest airport. he bailed from 18,000 feet.

Basically, Robert is trying to go against Hanson vs the FBI. Hanson probably doesn't know where the chute was actually found other than what is reported. according to Carr it's not very close to Amboy to begin with. Hanson is trying to recall something from about 63 years ago. I don't see where he needs to hike miles to make it to the chute the FBI has. Hanson could easily be mistaken with his conclusions.

The way I read the article from the Seattle PI is the FBI heard this story, and agreed "it's definitely possible"

How long has the chute been there? it doesn't have to be Wallings chute, and it doesn't have to of been in the ground since 1945, or 1971, or even 2000. it's speculation stating when it was buried.

Below is a photo of the Amboy chute with it's markings, and another cargo chute with similar markings. these seem to differ from personal chutes with stamped markings on them.

Amboy chute is on the left.

Well, one thing is certain - it was not buried "deep" as some report. And when this first surfaced there were even several reports that people in that area already knew there was an old chute there, had encountered it before, and one guy said he thought the chute had been covered over (graded over) from a previous owner/user of the ground in question.

The current owner/user of the property did not know it was there, to the side of an entry road to a field. The current owner/user went in with a blade on his tractor to grade out ruts in this entry road to a field. He made several passes with his blade working out the ruts and backed out to make a third pass and the edge of his blade caught the chute buried just off the main part of this entry path to his field. His kids saw the blade snag something and called it his attention. There is a good photo of the tractor sitting on the freshly graded entry road with the cloth chute sticking out from freshly graded dirt at the edge of the road. From my perspective having graded out many entry roads to fields over my lifetime, that chute is just below the surface (6-8" and no more than a foot), and was easily snagged by the blade once the tractor moved over and took a pass widening the road. That is all there is to this. That photo published says it all. That "canopy" (and that is all it is) at the edge of the road looks like it had been dumped there earlier and  graded over before at the edge of the road. I didnot save those first photos I saw in articles otherwise I would present them now. Maybe somebody can find them. All of this has been said before when Blevins first posted his theory at DZ about this matter ...

The location Blevins uses in his map ... I am the one who provided photos and that location on DZ! Blevins got that from my posts. I got the Google map photos from one of the first articles on this matter - the article was taken down I think. I will post those photos when I get a chance to find them here.

On the issue of silk - Blevins says silk would be badly deteriorated. He says since the chute is pristine it is not silk! Burroughs and Carr both describe the chute as being "badly deteriorated"!


   




     
« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 04:19:39 PM by georger »
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #80 on: December 21, 2014, 04:36:46 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Ok, so it seems it was Hanson who made the claim that it could possibly be Wallings chute. I thought it was a reporter. the report doesn't give to many details about the crash. I have the report, but it's hard to read. if anyone wishes to see it, just PM, or email me. the plane "unwitnessed crash approx, a mile and a half north of Yale Wash," Wallings was given a violation for not following weather conditions and landing at the nearest airport. he bailed from 18,000 feet.

Basically, Robert is trying to go against Hanson vs the FBI. Hanson probably doesn't know where the chute was actually found other than what is reported. according to Carr it's not very close to Amboy to begin with. Hanson is trying to recall something from about 63 years ago. I don't see where he needs to hike miles to make it to the chute the FBI has. Hanson could easily be mistaken with his conclusions.

The way I read the article from the Seattle PI is the FBI heard this story, and agreed "it's definitely possible"

How long has the chute been there? it doesn't have to be Wallings chute, and it doesn't have to of been in the ground since 1945, or 1971, or even 2000. it's speculation stating when it was buried.

Below is a photo of the Amboy chute with it's markings, and another cargo chute with similar markings. these seem to differ from personal chutes with stamped markings on them.

Amboy chute is on the left.

I don't know how the repacking of cargo parachutes is documented, but ALL military or civilian parachutes for pilots and crew members that I have ever personally seen had a packing card in a pocket on the outside of the container or on the harness.  These parachutes had to be repacked a regular intervals and that repacking, plus any other pertinent information, was documented on that packing card.

The dates and numbers on the parachutes shown above by Shutter could be their original manufacture dates and contract numbers or they could represent dates of repairs or modifications to the canopies and the authorization for that work.  Also, I would not expect to find a "harness" on a cargo parachute.

In my opinion, the hassle over the Amboy and Walling parachutes is meaningless.  Immediately following World War 2, tens of thousands of surplus personnel and cargo parachute canopies were sold, or given, to the general public and various institutions.  Even in the early 1960s, you could buy personnel parachute canopies and other equipment that had been manufactured during WW2 and was still in its unopened shipping box from the manufacturer.  I believe 377 can confirm this.

Your last paragraph above - very good!

This may not be the Walling chute at all. Thousands of these chutes were purchased surplus post WWII - hell we kids had three of them from the grades thru highschool playing them etc etc etc - farmers used to cover things with them - they were literally all over the place! They were very common as equipment covers, some people even covered hay with them! Most were purchased as canopies without the bag/container. ALL OF THOSE OLD WWII CHUTES WERE SILK!

Sewing clubs used to buy them and the woman made handkerchiefs and all kinds of things from them, for sale at church bizarrs etc.

Somewhere I have a photo of that road and the field beyond it and it looks like a hay field to me. That chute could have been used to cover bails of hay!

I will even go out on a limb and say the FBI photos of that chute look like silk to me - vs nylon. I posted about this at DZ years ago. 377 wasn't sure for some reason, but I based my opinion on the 'luft' (loft in English?) of the material the way is lays .. a very light weight material vs nylon.  I even posted a photo of silk on DZ and 377 even joked about how the guys at the Seattle office were probably outside with a magnifying glass now looking at the material - it's silk! And Carr etal described it as "badly deteriorated", just as Blevins requires..

This matter is not worthy of the Federal Case Blevins has tried to make out it!

 :o   

 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7636
  • Thanked: 723 times
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #81 on: December 21, 2014, 04:38:30 PM »
Quote
In my opinion, the hassle over the Amboy and Walling parachutes is meaningless.

I couldn't agree more, unfortunately we must set records straight that get skewed by others. I don't believe the chute is anything other than a chute that was found by some kids that ended up not being Cooper's. the conspiracy with it doesn't fit. I think they would have been a lot more "hush hush" about the whole incident. they came to the conclusion by several means, and don't have to answer to everyone when questioned.  :)

Did the FBI explain in detail how they dismissed the 1000 plus suspects? they don't have to tell us anything...
« Last Edit: December 21, 2014, 04:46:53 PM by shutter »
 

georger

  • Guest
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #82 on: December 21, 2014, 05:24:06 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
In my opinion, the hassle over the Amboy and Walling parachutes is meaningless.

I couldn't agree more, unfortunately we must set records straight that get skewed by others. I don't believe the chute is anything other than a chute that was found by some kids that ended up not being Cooper's. the conspiracy with it doesn't fit. I think they would have been a lot more "hush hush" about the whole incident. they came to the conclusion by several means, and don't have to answer to everyone when questioned.  :)

Did the FBI explain in detail how they dismissed the 1000 plus suspects? they don't have to tell us anything...

Good post especially the last part - laughing....   ;) ;) ;)
 

Robert99

  • Guest
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #83 on: December 28, 2014, 04:22:04 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Quote
In my opinion, the hassle over the Amboy and Walling parachutes is meaningless.

I couldn't agree more, unfortunately we must set records straight that get skewed by others. I don't believe the chute is anything other than a chute that was found by some kids that ended up not being Cooper's. the conspiracy with it doesn't fit. I think they would have been a lot more "hush hush" about the whole incident. they came to the conclusion by several means, and don't have to answer to everyone when questioned.  :)

Did the FBI explain in detail how they dismissed the 1000 plus suspects? they don't have to tell us anything...

Good post especially the last part - laughing....   ;) ;) ;)

Anyone who thinks the Amboy parachute is anything but a cargo parachute needs to Goggle the "42J3968-2" number that appears on that canopy.  They will get several hits that clearly identify that the number in question applies to cargo parachutes manufactured in the WW2 era.  Thus, the January 23, 1945 date is plainly the manufacturing date.
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7636
  • Thanked: 723 times
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #84 on: December 28, 2014, 04:41:57 PM »
Actually the numbers are 307551 with a date of Feb. 21, 1946
The number 42J3968-2 was of a cargo chute I used as an example of how they were marked.
« Last Edit: December 28, 2014, 04:53:09 PM by shutter »
 

Robert99

  • Guest
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #85 on: December 28, 2014, 05:35:36 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually the numbers are 307551 with a date of Feb. 21, 1946
The number 42J3968-2 was of a cargo chute I used as an example of how they were marked.

Okay, if the above numbers apply to a personnel parachute, and that hasn't been proven to my knowledge, then this parachute would be a minimum of more than 25 years old in November 1971.  And it is highly unlikely that a canopy that old would be used on an emergency personnel parachute at that time.

The February 21, 1946 date would not be a repack date.  The repack dates appear on the parachute packing card and not on the canopy.  I have never seen an emergency parachute, either civilian or military, that had a "repack due" date.  The packing cards contain the date of the last repack and usually a printed statement about the length of the repack cycle.
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7636
  • Thanked: 723 times
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #86 on: December 28, 2014, 05:51:08 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Actually the numbers are 307551 with a date of Feb. 21, 1946
The number 42J3968-2 was of a cargo chute I used as an example of how they were marked.

Okay, if the above numbers apply to a personnel parachute, and that hasn't been proven to my knowledge, then this parachute would be a minimum of more than 25 years old in November 1971.  And it is highly unlikely that a canopy that old would be used on an emergency personnel parachute at that time.

The February 21, 1946 date would not be a repack date.  The repack dates appear on the parachute packing card and not on the canopy.  I have never seen an emergency parachute, either civilian or military, that had a "repack due" date.  The packing cards contain the date of the last repack and usually a printed statement about the length of the repack cycle.


I stand corrected on the markings. I thought it was possible they didn't have packing cards for cargo chutes, and possibly marked them on the chute since no manufacture was present on the stamp.
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7636
  • Thanked: 723 times
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #87 on: December 29, 2014, 07:07:00 AM »
It is also possible the marking was not the serial number. it appears the chute would be easily identified if it did have an actual serial number on it.

Every Personnel chute I have come across has a lot more information on them. they list the manufacture, the date, and the serial number.(see photo) it's from a silk chute made in 1945. it appears they have a generic stamp for the chute, and then add the date, and serial number with another stamp.

I realize Cossey hasn't been completely honest with his story in the past, but I can't believe everyone else got the chute wrong about the material, or the type of chute it was. Bruce spoke with Cossey, Mr. Blevins did not even though he claims he has real facts to backup his statements. he did ask the FBI apparently, and was told it's an open case. he tried to claim for years that Tom Kaye was DENIED access to the chute while there viewing all the evidence. Tom told me he didn't bring the subject up since they dismissed the chute prior to him being there.

We know others looked at the chute, it went to the lab for analysis. nobody knows how long the chute was in the ground to begin with to make a statement about it's condition. I know the FBI wouldn't take the word of one. it was a totality of evidence that gave the proof needed to dismiss it as Cooper's.

The FBI made this statement at one point

"We`re still in the process of finishing up what investigative steps we think are necessary to feel certain about calling it one way or the other."
« Last Edit: December 29, 2014, 04:53:25 PM by shutter »
 

Offline Shutter

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7636
  • Thanked: 723 times
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #88 on: December 29, 2014, 05:06:36 PM »
While others expect positive proof from the FBI on the Amboy chute I'm wondering how an 11 year veteran of the sport didn't realize he grabbed a dummy chute? how are we to expect Cooper to notice it based on limited knowledge of his experience with skydiving? if he missed obvious marking that were suppose to be on there he should of notice the difference in weight? at least that's how Carr said it.
 

Offline andrade1812

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 484
  • Thanked: 65 times
    • My Website
Re: Two Back Packs & Two Front Chutes
« Reply #89 on: December 29, 2014, 05:41:40 PM »
I've always wondered what the whole story about the dummy chute was. When was it noticed? why did they risk giving it to Cooper? Who noticed it? Who made the decision?