SA Charles E. Farrell to SAC Seattle re parachutes for NORJAK test drop
Document date 18 January 1972
Also filed at: Part 64 p. 123
Copies may differ in what was redacted.
Report a problem
Email this to [email protected]
Id: Cooper-Part-70:075-075
Subject: Cooper Files: Cooper-Part-70:075-075 Document: Memo SA Charles E. Farrell to SAC Seattle re parachutes for NORJAK test drop Id: Cooper-Part-70:075-075 Page: https://cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-70%3A075-075 What is wrong (title, date, type, which pages belong together, copies)? What does the scan show?
A person reads every report. Corrections are made by hand, to the data — titles, dates, names, which pages belong together — never to the scans, and they can take a while to appear.
FBI 164-81, Vault Part 70 p. 75 (DB Cooper-29801), Memo, dated 18 Jan 1972, serial SE 164-81-1993 (as read from the transcript) — cooper.theunsolved.net/documents/Cooper-Part-70%3A075-075
SAC, SEATTLE (164-81) 1/18/72
SA CHARLES E. FARRELL
NORJAK
---
In connection with preparations for the test drop, efforts were made to contact EARL COSSEY at SUnset 3-0475. COSSEY was out, but [REDACTED] [REDACTED], Seattle, [REDACTED] of EARL COSSEY, advised that he was presently working toward
[REDACTED]. He advised that one of the back packs was a 26 footer and the other a 28 footer, but both were rigged so they would have the same rate of descent.
He advised that the 26 foot chute, although it is smaller, also has a different design which would explaine why the two chutes could have an almost identical rate of descent. According to a chart referred to by [REDACTED], the chutes would have the following rate of descent:
A 28 foot with a person between 180 and 200 lbs., would drop about 17 to 18 feet per second.
He advised that the chutes would normally deploy in 3 or 4 seconds. They both were like military chutes in that they did not have sleeves.
[REDACTED] advised that he works [REDACTED] [REDACTED].
---
CEF:klb (3)
---
Sub. L 164-81-1993
---
DB Cooper-29801
Serials: SE 164-81, SE 164-81-1993
Similar documents
Very similar text — possibly a copy redacted differently, or another memo written from the same template.