• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

An explanation for the 1973 Coyne Army Helicopter incident


Kevin Randle's response at that "Parabunk" site says it all IMHO.

KRandleApril 28, 2018 at 3:37 PM
Did you talk to any Army helicopter pilots who would have been trained at the same time as Coyne? Are your assumptions about the operations inside the cockpit based on interviews with Army pilots or are the based on speculations. I would be delighted to provide some insight about helicopters, especially the UH-1 if that would help.​

Randle of course was a Huey pilot. The author of the article is "Realm" from here at the Paracast, and HERE was my response to his "first draft" of the article. IMHO the article is now only slightly less ridiculous in its present form. But there is no indication that Realm actually interviewed any aircrew of either Huey helicopters or KC-97's or KC-130's or any other aircraft. IMHO caveat lector.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kevin Randle's response at that "Parabunk" site says it all IMHO.

KRandleApril 28, 2018 at 3:37 PM
Did you talk to any Army helicopter pilots who would have been trained at the same time as Coyne? Are your assumptions about the operations inside the cockpit based on interviews with Army pilots or are the based on speculations. I would be delighted to provide some insight about helicopters, especially the UH-1 if that would help.​

Randle of course was a Huey pilot. The author of the article is "Realm" from here at the Paracast, and HERE was my response to his "first draft" of the article. IMHO the article is now only slightly less ridiculous in its present form. But there is no indication that Realm actually interviewed any aircrew of either Huey helicopters or KC-97's or KC-130's or any other aircraft. IMHO caveat lector.
Thanks for the info. Most people on here probably recall me saying that the Coyne case has been my favorite case for the last 30+ years. But after reviewing some information, here's what I find a little odd and/or coincidental (and I am only playing the devils advocate);

As a U.S. Naval Aircrewman - it seems pretty convenient that the two main lights on the craft were green & red. Because a green light is on the right wing of an aircraft & red is on the left wing. So instantly when I hear green & red lights I'm thinking a man made aircraft. Then they say a bright white light (which would be used in some type of refueling operation). Then I find it odd they say the cockpit was bathed in green light, when the top skylights in a UH-1 Huey are green. That also seems pretty coincidental. Then one of the big mysteries was how could the helicopter climb when the collective is in the down position? But then I read Jezzi's own statement mentioning how it's not uncommon to be talking to each other and not realize you are minutely raising the collective. Enough to climb to their highest altitude in a few minutes. I always was under the impression it was an almost-instant type of of climb & not the course of a couple minutes. He also says he's climbed before when the collective is down when getting caught in a thermal and/or backwash of the wings of a large airplane. I also find it interesting (unless I read it wrong) that Jezzi claims he never saw the detailed, structured craft that Coyne saw. Jezzi said he just saw a bright, white light. It would seem reasonable that two pilots sitting shoulder to shoulder would have a pretty close description of an object that was supposed to have been right in front of them. I think it's odd that one pilot had a super detailed description of the object and the other did not.

I'm not saying the blogger's explanation is air tight - because it is not. But it is not totally unreasonable to think that a tanker could have misidentified Coyne's helo as his target - got embarrassed & just flew away. Not the same exact thing, but I'll tell you a quick story that happened to me;

I was still a student pilot (after the Navy) and I was flying to Trenton, NJ solo. On final approach I realized I lined up on the wrong runway. Blood rushed through my limbs, chest & face as I got super embarrassed & scared at the same time because it could have caused a mid air collision. I panicked, added full power & then just turned to the left while climbing & didn't say anything to ATC out of embarrassment. I just wanted to abort & go home. But once I recomposed myself, I contacted ATC and got permission to align with the correct runway. So if they were watching in the tower (and if it were night) - someone could have said "It COULD NOT have been an airplane. That particular night planes were landing from west to east - this object was coming in east to west and then it just turned NOT in accordance with any traffic pattern & just left." My point is, is that things happen sometimes that weren't planned & mistakes are made. Who knows? Maybe the pilot of the tanker (if that's what it was) realized he did have the wrong target and thought to himself "Oh my God, I was trying to refuel the wrong target.", got embarrassed & just left like I did.

At least that is a plausible explanation and not a ludicrous explanation like Klass's meteorite theory or planet Venus.
 
Last edited:
The message board won't let me edit my last message it's spazzing out with weird code stuff, but I wanted to add some pics of the green roof of the helo so you can see what I'm talking about. I never knew about this green roof until I saw it today;

huey01.jpg 1200px-UH-1H_warbarbird_(modified).jpg
 
I just found another interesting photo. So picture this & keep this in mind; all aircraft have a red light on the left wing & a green light on the right wing. The refueling boom from a KC-135 (& other types) have a light on the boom so the operator can see what he's doing (see photo below). The UH-1 has green skylights on the top of it (see photo's above in prior post). Again, we have no proof - but don't you think its more than a coincidence that Coyne reported seeing 2 lights on the craft, green & red. Then a white light being emitted from the craft. Then his cabin being flooded in green light. In the photo below, just imagine the plane being targeted for refueling was the UH-1. Look where the white, bright light would be shining directly through (the green skylights);

kc135 refuel.JPG
 
But one can't focus solely on the "pro" phenomena weirdos, 'cause it's probably as safe a bet to guess that there are at least the same number of "anti" phenomena weirdos who are just as extreme in their denials.
And very often some of the most compelling cases fail to hold up under scrutiny - but it may take some time. I am think of Coyne -Mansfield incident. Credit to Creepy Green Light for that one.

The Coyne case was recently discussed at length over at Kevin Randle's blog just a while back. Randle, himself a Huey pilot of around the same era, eventually contacted one of the aircrew and asked if any of the new suggestions seemed to provide a possible solution, which, afaik, they did not.
 
The Coyne case was recently discussed at length over at Kevin Randle's blog just a while back. Randle, himself a Huey pilot of around the same era, eventually contacted one of the aircrew and asked if any of the new suggestions seemed to provide a possible solution, which, afaik, they did not.

This is the explanation I was referring to. The 1973 Coyne/Mansfield helicopter UFO incident finally explained
Seems reasonable to me - I'd rather consider that as a possibility before anything more exotic. Without having to do a forensic deep dive sometimes you can look at something and it just clicks.

These old cases have value from a historical perspective but after so many years I can't imagine that some tiny previously unseen detail will be groundbreaking, or what we'd do with it if it was. Probably the same thing my dog does when a party balloon blows through my back yard.

What could be of value from decades of ..... I don't know what exactly ...... would be to create an efficacious bulls**t filter based on all that experience that we might apply to current cases. Yt is happening and the 'immediacy of communication' was used effectively for a change. Didn't that Chilean Navy FLIR case turn out to be a FedEx flight?
 
This is the explanation I was referring to. The 1973 Coyne/Mansfield helicopter UFO incident finally explained Seems reasonable to me - I'd rather consider that as a possibility before anything more exotic.

Personally, I don't care how the Coyne case turns out, one way or the other. But like I said, some of the "anti" crowd are as hysterically motivated as the "pro" crowd. I read the article at the link in its 1.0 version and having been in military aviation in the '70's it struck me as a lot of ill-informed, unproven speculation that he said had proven the solution. Since then he's bolstered his points, but the big fail to me is this: Big heavy military a/c use radios, and big heavy military a/c that are supposed to rendevous with other a/c for inflight refueling - at night - at an altitude of only 3000 ft or so - would of necessity use their radios before approaching a target close enough to seemingly cause a near collision. So, from my view, the article at the link might provide a possible avenue of further investigation, but it is not a convincing solution by any means. But hey, each to his own. And this does illustrate the "99.99% disputational battles" in ufology.
 
This is the explanation I was referring to. The 1973 Coyne/Mansfield helicopter UFO incident finally explained
Seems reasonable to me - I'd rather consider that as a possibility before anything more exotic. Without having to do a forensic deep dive sometimes you can look at something and it just clicks.

These old cases have value from a historical perspective but after so many years I can't imagine that some tiny previously unseen detail will be groundbreaking, or what we'd do with it if it was. Probably the same thing my dog does when a party balloon blows through my back yard.

What could be of value from decades of ..... I don't know what exactly ...... would be to create an efficacious bulls**t filter based on all that experience that we might apply to current cases. Yt is happening and the 'immediacy of communication' was used effectively for a change. Didn't that Chilean Navy FLIR case turn out to be a FedEx flight?
Thanks for posting that link. It's always good to have counterpoint. However I'm not so easily swayed. On top of no evidence that there actually was a tanker in the area tasked with a helicopter refuelling, the article asks:

"Why would a tanker try to refuel someone who isn't expecting it? Because of that, we need to consider the possibility someone just wanted to scare someone shitless for the fun of it."

We're really supposed to believe that? We're talking about military pilots operating millions of dollars worth of equipment at night, not civilians out for a joy ride. The mere suggestion is ludicrous. It goes on to say:


"Could it be that the tanker crew performed a practical joke on the helicopter? That sounds like a pretty far fetched idea."

I couldn't agree more. It's about as far fetched as a UFO taking an interest in the helicopter. If it was an actual tanker, the only reasonable explanation is a case of mistaken identity. The article does cite such a case as precedent, so it's not inconceivable, but one would expect that if the tanker mistook the helicopter for its target, the facts would have come out about it fairly quickly.

It was an admirable attempt at debunking, but it's a far cry from declaring the case solved.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for posting that link. It's always good to have counterpoint. However I'm not so easily swayed. On top of no evidence that there actually was a tanker in the area tasked with a helicopter refuelling, the article asks:

"Why would a tanker try to refuel someone who isn't expecting it? Because of that, we need to consider the possibility someone just wanted to scare someone shitless for the fun of it."

We're really supposed to believe that? We're talking about military pilots operating millions of dollars worth of equipment at night, not civilians out for a joy ride. The mere suggestion is ludicrous. It goes on to say:


"Could it be that the tanker crew performed a practical joke on the helicopter? That sounds like a pretty far fetched idea."

I couldn't agree more. It's about as far fetched as a UFO taking an interest in the helicopter. If it was an actual tanker, the only reasonable explanation is a case of mistaken identity. The article does cite such a case as precedent, so it's not inconceivable, but one would expect that if the tanker mistook the helicopter for its target, the facts would have come out about it fairly quickly.

It was an admirable attempt at debunking, but it's a far cry from declaring the case solved.

Well, OK. Probably a poor example for me to pick. Not sure of one I might pick that someone somewhere will disagree with. I mentioned it because the suggestion it might be another aircraft based on the lights doesn't sound far fetched. As for a tanker - well of course. The military is composed of infallible human beings and mistakes are never made. Someone else in the forum - maybe you Randall - said that when you hear the thunder of hooves think horses not zebras. Hell even if it were zebras at least they would be an unusual and yet perfectly terrestrial explanation.

Not precisely my point and I'm not interested in getting into the weeds on this one. What I would like to say is that cases which are decades old tend to be far less exciting after a great deal of scrutiny and yet despite suggestions that all may not be as it appears there are still those who will clutch them to their bosom. OK Coyne/Mansfield can stay a UFO - as in - we don't know what it was. How does that help? Does it change anything? Add to the body of knowledge? After 45 years if it had something to offer it would have already. Another interesting account, that's about it.

What concerns me is when I hear people collect several of these iconic incidents to create a larger picture. I can't pull a specific example out of my head at the moment but I have heard more than one guest on your show (and others) do exactly that. I get the impression we are all sick of Roswell yet there are those who will use it as a foundation to prove their point and then collect other well known cases that fit their views and before you know it you have a list of cases taken as fact to support some line of thinking. By some, not all - but enough to be a problem.Certainly a problem to a newbie who might just believe all that at a gulp.

Hate to keep banging this drum but as I've said in the past I've lived in the Hudson Valley my entire life and have been a UFO enthusiast. Seen any number of odd things that I was able to figure out myself. I saw the damned 'giant structured craft myself' right when this was all going on. Who else in this forum has? I would honestly like to know. Not being snarky. I'll take you to the damned grass strip that the giant 'structured craft' took off from - and bring a jerry can because you can get 100 octane low lead avgas there too. Shhhh. Yet somehow a total phony aligned himself with a dying astronomer who really did have credentials and suddenly this thing had legs. And I've heard guests on your show refer to the Hudson Valley sightings the same way some refer to Roswell - as given.

My mistake for bringing this case up. Thing is - I already believe that there is some sort of 'visitation' occurring whatever the source and don't need to be proselytized. I was just saying cases which are that old have limited value and we waste a lot of time going back and forth about details which can't really prove anything. If there really was a nefarious disinformation campaign they have created something that feeds upon itself endlessly like a cannibalistic perpetual motion machine.

Whew .... enough of that ... :)
 
Last edited:
Well, OK. Probably a poor example for me to pick. Not sure of one I might pick that someone somewhere will disagree with. I mentioned it because the suggestion it might be another aircraft based on the lights doesn't sound far fetched. As for a tanker - well of course. The military is composed of infallible human beings and mistakes are never made. Someone else in the forum - maybe you Randall - said that when you hear the thunder of hooves think horses not zebras. Hell even if it were zebras at least they would be an unusual and yet perfectly terrestrial explanation.

Not precisely my point and I'm not interested in getting into the weeds on this one. What I would like to say is that cases which are decades old tend to be far less exciting after a great deal of scrutiny and yet despite suggestions that all may not be as it appears there are still those who will clutch them to their bosom. OK Coyne/Mansfield can stay a UFO - as in - we don't know what it was. How does that help? Does it change anything? Add to the body of knowledge? After 45 years if it had something to offer it would have already. Another interesting account, that's about it.

What concerns me is when I hear people collect several of these iconic incidents to create a larger picture. I can't pull a specific example out of my head at the moment but I have heard more than one guest on your show (and others) do exactly that. I get the impression we are all sick of Roswell yet there are those who will use it as a foundation to prove their point and then collect other well known cases that fit their views and before you know it you have a list of cases taken as fact to support some line of thinking. By some, not all - but enough to be a problem.Certainly a problem to a newbie who might just believe all that at a gulp.

Hate to keep banging this drum but as I've said in the past I've lived in the Hudson Valley my entire life and have been a UFO enthusiast. Seen any number of odd things that I was able to figure out myself. I saw the damned 'giant structured craft myself' right when this was all going on. Who else in this forum has? I would honestly like to know. Not being snarky. I'll take you to the damned grass strip that the giant 'structured craft' took off from - and bring a jerry can because you can get 100 octane low lead avgas there too. Shhhh. Yet somehow a total phony aligned himself with a dying astronomer who really did have credentials and suddenly this thing had legs. And I've heard guests on your show refer to the Hudson Valley sightings the same way some refer to Roswell - as given.

My mistake for bringing this case up. Thing is - I already believe that there is some sort of 'visitation' occurring whatever the source and don't need to be proselytized. I was just saying cases which are that old have limited value and we waste a lot of time going back and forth about details which can't really prove anything. If there really was a nefarious disinformation campaign they have created something that feeds upon itself endlessly like a cannibalistic perpetual motion machine.

Whew .... enough of that ... :)
You make perfectly points. Certainly no need to think of it as a mistake. If we don't challenge ourselves enough it's good to have someone else do it for us, and I'd sooner the field was composed of fair-minded skeptics than wide-eyed believers.
 
The military is composed of infallible human beings and mistakes are never made.

The deal is, the author of the article you'd read, as far as I can tell, had no military or aviation background, and as a result he makes "far-reaching" (to be polite) assumptions that he thinks support his speculative thesis. Such assertive speculation is just as much a part of the noise in the world of ufology as anyone making claims on the far fringe of the other side of the spectrum, and that was the only point I wished to make.
:)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top