Author Topic: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case (Read 1407522 times)

Shutter · « **Reply #5985 on:** January 31, 2021, 06:06:34 PM »

Didn't Cossey claim on "In Search Of" that Cooper could of survived?

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #5986 on:** January 31, 2021, 06:56:11 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Didn't Cossey claim on "In Search Of" that Cooper could of survived?

I don't know. I guess I saw the show, but my memory is hazy.

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #5987 on:** January 31, 2021, 06:58:28 PM »

Photos of Hayden's chute

I posted most of my pix of Norman's chute at the MN.

One question: How do we know that the "unused" chute had the serial number 226? I can't find it on the chute, at least in the pix I have. Nor do I remember seeing it anywhere.

Anyway, here's the link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Shutter · « **Reply #5988 on:** January 31, 2021, 07:17:15 PM »

The only way to check the numbers is to open the chute. you only seen the container and a piece of the chute pulled out..

dudeman17 · « **Reply #5989 on:** February 01, 2021, 05:19:02 AM »

"When asked why he fucked up, he became hostile." I don't really like little internet cutesies like 'lol', but literally, I laughed out loud at that.

-------

I found a significant answer. All the involved numbers are on 'document 2', part 'E', outlined in red, in Shutter's post #5975 on the previous page. Describing the back chute found on the plane, it lists Pioneer, 26 foot, 226. and 9/57. I seems to mix up type, SN, and DOM, though. (Those numbers are also on the packing card shown in Bruce's photos.) Doc 2 also describes that 'other' canopy, an 'integral part' of the same rig, and lists Steinthal, 24 foot, 60-9707, and 7/60. It also seems to mix up type, SN, and DOM. Those are the two sets of numbers Flyjack has, seemingly describing different rigs. That second 'canopy', the Steinthal, 24 foot, 60-9707, 7/60, that has to be the pilot chute, and the size misread or typo'd as feet, when it would really be inches. There's just no other possibility in that description. There was no rig at that time, certainly not an emergency bailout rig, that had two full size canopies in one backpack. But a pilot chute could certainly be described as an 'integral part' of the rig. Those pilot chute numbers don't seem to appear on the packing card (Bruce's photos seem to show both sides), and they wouldn't reasonably be anywhere else on the rig, so to get those they must have opened the rig and read it directly from the PC.

So from that, it would seem that all those numbers are indeed from the same rig, that it was the one left on the plane, and it was the one they gave back to Hayden. See what you find when you read this shit in the middle of the night?

Shutter · « **Reply #5990 on:** February 01, 2021, 11:20:53 AM »

Not sure where the quote at the top of your post came from, but it appears to be what I suspected with clerical error's and not having the full story documented. I'm not sure what they thought they would find opening the chute to gain anything lead wise. would just the pilot chute pop out when pulled since it's spring loaded along with the container opening allowing the main to stay in the container, somewhat?

Should will still seek answers trying to get the chute opened for inspection when the museum finally opens?

I see this reference "for unknown reasons, and when asked why he sent them to BF instead of ST, he became hostile."

Robert99 · « **Reply #5991 on:** February 01, 2021, 02:34:27 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Photos of Hayden's chute

I posted most of my pix of Norman's chute at the MN.

One question: How do we know that the "unused" chute had the serial number 226? I can't find it on the chute, at least in the pix I have. Nor do I remember seeing it anywhere.

Anyway, here's the link:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Bruce, contrary to your story, there is an FBI document in DZ post #63140 which states that the Hayden parachutes went by taxicab to Boeing Field and not to SEATAC. Hayden apparently did not have anything further to do with the chutes until the FBI returned one some time after the hijacking. The returned parachute is the one that Hayden donated to the WSHM and has been photographed in one of their exhibits.

There is no documentation on how the parachutes got from Boeing Field to SEATAC but I would guess that they were delivered by Halstead or by someone at his direction.

Shutter · « **Reply #5992 on:** February 01, 2021, 02:54:30 PM »

It appears to be one giant cluster fuck of errors.

Hayden claims he never described the parachutes to the FBI. Cossey made these assumptions based on them being his chutes at one point including packing them. The FBI distorts things further with poor description details. only one person has the knowledge required and it's still distorted. as Flyjack mentions on the DZ Cossey had to recall what the chutes looked like if he didn't have them on record. the chute appears and causes problems from the lack of properly documenting the evidence before it got on the plane.

That's how it appears to look IMO?

Shutter · « **Reply #5993 on:** February 01, 2021, 03:16:10 PM »

Flyjack, in your comments you posted a redacted version of the evidence Cooper took that evening. the redacted part is "Norm D" inscribed. that appears to be the dummy chute. if the documents are correct.

Hayden's chute in the museum has two different colors that I pointed out earlier in a post almost being backwards to what was supposedly taken by Cooper.

R99, if the chutes where given to the FBI being able to see only the backside would it be the sage green/drab green they could of mistaken for it's color? the harness on Hayden's chute is green. even if they were in the car with the container down they would show green. the document Flyjack posted shows they were not examined closely? could this be part of the cluster of problems?

I'm just wondering if the color variation is wrong by all. both having green/sage/drab harnesses and tan containers and the only difference would be canopy size?

Robert99 · « **Reply #5994 on:** February 01, 2021, 03:55:49 PM »

Here are some comments on NB-6 parachutes as well as the one that is now in the WSHM.

Until the late summer or fall of 1971, I owned a Navy NB-6 parachute for use when I flew aircraft with extremely cramped cockpits. This was a complete and genuine NB-6 rig which required some efforts by my rigger and myself to get all the components. The reason for wanting this particular rig is that it had a 26 foot canopy that was quite small when packed compared to a 28 foot rig. The NB-6 rig cost about two or three times as much, maybe a lot more, as a 28 foot rig.

This NB-6 canopy was conical and could not be laid flat on a surface. It had shroud lines that were sewn into the upper end of the riser instead of being attached by metal links. The shroud lines only went to the skirt of the canopy with cloth tape continuing over the top of the canopy.

The NB-6 harness was probably the most complicated one to put on that I ever encountered, whether military or civilian. And 377 can vouch for this.

The NB-6 pilot chute had a little stud which fit through the center of the compressed spring and out a grommet on the top of the pilot chute. This stud fit into the grommet and served as the third stud from the top of the container and the link in the rip cord. The end result of this was that the pilot chute was completely compressed when packed and would not dig into the canopy or shift sideways.

The NB-6 container had studs on the top and bottom flaps plus another stud on a side flap which was the second rip cord connection from the top and, of course, the third connection was the pilot chute.

I have an NB-6 harness and pilot chute that I obtained from Ralph Hartley several years ago. I bought the NB-6 container on e-bay. I do not have an NB-6 canopy.

I have carefully examined the NB-6 container, harness, and pilot chute today and do not see a single serial number anywhere. However, there plenty of markings related to the Navy procurement system, manufacturers, dates, and so forth.

A careful examination of the photographs of the Hayden parachute that is now at WSHM indicates that it does not have an NB-6 harness (as plainly stated on the webbing), an NB-6 container, or an NB-6 pilot chute. And based on the size of the container, I doubt if there is an NB-6 canopy inside. The chute will have to be opened to identify the canopy.

Since Hayden and/or Cossey have claimed that the two Hayden parachutes were identical, there is reason to believe that no NB-6 parachute equipment was delivered to the hijacker despite claims to the contrary. The WSHM parachute appears to be a collection of various military surplus parachute equipment, probably all ex-USAF, that Cossey assembled into a rig.

As Shutter has just pointed out above, there is a lot of misinformation circulating on this subject. Personally, I don't see any reason for this being an issue. So far as I can tell, only Hayden's two back packs and the two chest packs from Sky Sport are the only ones that were involved.

Robert99 · « **Reply #5995 on:** February 01, 2021, 04:05:57 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Flyjack, in your comments you posted a redacted version of the evidence Cooper took that evening. the redacted part is "Norm D" inscribed. that appears to be the dummy chute. if the documents are correct.

Hayden's chute in the museum has two different colors that I pointed out earlier in a post almost being backwards to what was supposedly taken by Cooper.

R99, if the chutes where given to the FBI being able to see only the backside would it be the sage green/drab green they could of mistaken for it's color? the harness on Hayden's chute is green. even if they were in the car with the container down they would show green. the document Flyjack posted shows they were not examined closely? could this be part of the cluster of problems?

I'm just wondering if the color variation is wrong by all. both having green/sage/drab harnesses and tan containers and the only difference would be canopy size?

As Dudeman has pointed out above, it is extremely difficult to read numbers in the middle of the night, especially when they are blue and printed on a green piece of webbing, and the same applies to determining the actual color of the harness and container. Anything is possible here.

Shutter · « **Reply #5996 on:** February 01, 2021, 05:28:30 PM »

I agree on things being difficult to read in dark surroundings but we are dealing in evidence and they should of properly documented everything found. I guess to drive a nail in this and call it dead the chute will have to be opened for inspection.

The historical society has no idea when they will be open at this time. we have no option but to wait for the all clear. hopefully, they will agree to allow the repack. I told them it could be done there or at a shop with extreme care with the item. it's left up to the new office manager which I didn't touch base with due to the closing. if it gets approved I would like Bruce to be part of this for documentation. new photo's of the repack card showing the latest repack date. every single piece of data written, stamped or marked on the container and the chute documented on paper and photo's. verify any modification the rigger can identify. pictures of the chute before during and after the repack. things that should of been done 50 years ago...

I don't know if Tom Kaye would like any testing done on the container or not. it's probably been handled by dozens of people.

dudeman17 · « **Reply #5997 on:** February 01, 2021, 06:25:34 PM »

This may never be fully resolved. The numbers I was reading last night were on the document Shutter posted, and I did have the lights on. All the numbers in Flyjack's 'conflict' are on that document. The document Flyjack posted on dz today indicates that '60-9707' came from the packing card, while the document Shutter posted yesterday indicates otherwise. And in the pictures Bruce posted, the packing card shows the '226' numbers, but not the '60-9707' ones. If/when that rig is opened, the first thing I would want to see is if the '60-9707' number is indeed on the pilot chute.

-------

Yeah, that quote I found funny was Cossey's. I dunno why, but some ol' riggers can become a bit gruff. So him 'becoming hostile' at a question, I had to laugh.

-----

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I'm not sure what they thought they would find opening the chute to gain anything lead wise. would just the pilot chute pop out when pulled since it's spring loaded along with the container opening allowing the main to stay in the container, somewhat?

I can imagine the FBI just tearing into anything they got their hands on. And yeah when they pulled the ripcord the spring-loaded pilot chute would pop out, but the canopy would stay put. However, by Bruce's pictures, Hayden's rig has the cones and pack opening bands. The side flaps of the container would be pulled apart by those bands. So when they then picked up or moved the rig, the canopy would easily fall out of it. And re-closing that rig would be a bitch, near impossible unless you were a rigger and knew the technique, so they would probably just put it into a bag of some sort. I would like to know if Hayden's rig was open when he got it back. I asked Blevins, but he didn't respond to that part. Is Hayden still alive?

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #5998 on:** February 01, 2021, 06:54:03 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

I agree on things being difficult to read in dark surroundings but we are dealing in evidence and they should of properly documented everything found. I guess to drive a nail in this and call it dead the chute will have to be opened for inspection.

The historical society has no idea when they will be open at this time. we have no option but to wait for the all clear. hopefully, they will agree to allow the repack. I told them it could be done there or at a shop with extreme care with the item. it's left up to the new office manager which I didn't touch base with due to the closing. if it gets approved I would like Bruce to be part of this for documentation. new photo's of the repack card showing the latest repack date. every single piece of data written, stamped or marked on the container and the chute documented on paper and photo's. verify any modification the rigger can identify. pictures of the chute before during and after the repack. things that should of been done 50 years ago...

I don't know if Tom Kaye would like any testing done on the container or not. it's probably been handled by dozens of people.

I'd love to be part of the operation. Shut, who are you talking with at the WSHM? I'll get in touch with them and coordinate from there.

Bruce A. Smith · « **Reply #5999 on:** February 01, 2021, 06:55:17 PM »

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This may never be fully resolved. The numbers I was reading last night were on the document Shutter posted, and I did have the lights on. All the numbers in Flyjack's 'conflict' are on that document. The document Flyjack posted on dz today indicates that '60-9707' came from the packing card, while the document Shutter posted yesterday indicates otherwise. And in the pictures Bruce posted, the packing card shows the '226' numbers, but not the '60-9707' ones. If/when that rig is opened, the first thing I would want to see is if the '60-9707' number is indeed on the pilot chute.

-------

Yeah, that quote I found funny was Cossey's. I dunno why, but some ol' riggers can become a bit gruff. So him 'becoming hostile' at a question, I had to laugh.

-----

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
I'm not sure what they thought they would find opening the chute to gain anything lead wise. would just the pilot chute pop out when pulled since it's spring loaded along with the container opening allowing the main to stay in the container, somewhat?

I can imagine the FBI just tearing into anything they got their hands on. And yeah when they pulled the ripcord the spring-loaded pilot chute would pop out, but the canopy would stay put. However, by Bruce's pictures, Hayden's rig has the cones and pack opening bands. The side flaps of the container would be pulled apart by those bands. So when they then picked up or moved the rig, the canopy would easily fall out of it. And re-closing that rig would be a bitch, near impossible unless you were a rigger and knew the technique, so they would probably just put it into a bag of some sort. I would like to know if Hayden's rig was open when he got it back. I asked Blevins, but he didn't respond to that part. Is Hayden still alive?

I don't know if Norman is still with us. He'd be 90 or so.

Poll

Do you believe Cooper lived or died. the option are below to cast a vote...

Author Topic: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case (Read 1407522 times)

Shutter

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Shutter

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

dudeman17

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Shutter

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Robert99

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Shutter

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Shutter

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Robert99

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Robert99

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Shutter

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

dudeman17

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case

Bruce A. Smith

Re: Clues, Documents And Evidence About The Case