Cash Landrum case

[RadarRyder]

Misidentified Weather Phenomena Theory:

Excerpt: "Usually flame reflections appear as pale grey or bright orange-red streaks or bars of light, oriented vertically. They can last for minutes, even hours, disappearing and reappearing just like a light that is switched on and off. Reports have been collected for any time of the year but with a clear preponderance for cold winter nights."
​

Source: http://www.blueblurrylines.com/2013/11/cash-landrum-theory-analysis.html

I don't think so......this incident was witnessed by numerous people from different view points, besides Cash and the Landurms. All wintesses stated that the object was emitting some type of flame, and they also mentioned the helicopters following or chasing the object. The above natural weather phenomena would not explain the radiation burns, hair loss, and sickness experienced by Cash-Landrums.

 

[RadarRyder]

Right now I'm looking at the possibility this case and Bentwaters are related and human controlled vehicles.

I'm guessing that the Bentwaters and Cash-Landrum case are not related. As far as I can remember non of the military personnel in the Rendlesham Forest on those nights experienced any physical injuries such as Cash and Landrums.

 

[RadarRyder]

The Battle of Los Angeles/Cash-Landrum similarity........
Cash and the Landrums stated that military helicopters were chasing/following the craft.........now listen to this one guy (bald w/glasses from about min-3:30 to min-4:50 ) who was a kid at the time of the Battle of Los Angeles as to what he saw just moments after the object moved down the coast.........sound familiar!!!!!

(I've seen some older posts on this subject (Battle Of Los Angeles) in here, someone mentioning that there is nothing in the search beams of the lights.......I can tell you there is an object caught in the search beams....what it is, I don't know....but its not just lightbeams crossed with each other, and its not an anti-aircaft balloon.)

THE BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES

 

[Randall]

I don't think so......this incident was witnessed by numerous people from different view points, besides Cash and the Landurms. All wintesses stated that the object was emitting some type of flame, and they also mentioned the helicopters following or chasing the object. The above natural weather phenomena would not explain the radiation burns, hair loss, and sickness experienced by Cash-Landrums.

I also doubt anyone would mistake a weather phenomena like this for some kind of craft, but think it's an interesting weather phenomena, and posted it up more for the sake of interest than as a serious explanation.

 

[Sentry]

...this incident was witnessed by numerous people from different view points, besides Cash and the Landurms. All wintesses stated that the object was emitting some type of flame, and they also mentioned the helicopters following or chasing the object.

Whoa! The multiple witness claim is overstated. There was one good additional UFO witness, but he described a triangular UFO at twilight, and it had distinct characteristics the C-L craft was not said to have. One possibility is that he saw it while it was operating normally, and the C-L witness saw it while malfunctioning. Most of the other witnesses reported seeing some helicopters, and many of them were not sure it was the same night.

The worst thing about the secondary witnesses is that no one else prorated anything until after the stray broke with pleas in the media for other witnesses to come forward. The first ones responding were in early March 1981. If this was a hit and run case instead of about a UFO their testimony would be regarded very suspiciously.

Many of the familiar details are not facts, but opinions or biased conclusions entered into the case record. I'm trying to get to the truth of the event, but it's tough to push past the layers of myth to do that. There is a genuine mystery in this case, we don't need the extra jazz to make it interesting.

 

[Sentry]

Lance, thanks for the kind words. The investigator you mention, that's Chris Lambright. Most of the things you are referring to (the mysterious road replacement) he now regrets saying after seeing the evidence. I owe a lot to him, and want to emphasize that like everyone else, the foundation of his knowledge was based on the reports published by MUFON. What's different about Chris is that he took the initiative to travel to Dayton to personally interview Vickie Landrum on two occasions. Material he gathered has been vital to getting closer to the truth about what really happened.

I understand the problem that you are addressing, though. Too many UFO proponents just want to stack up case after case without critically examining them. They'll latch on to a story from any source whatsoever if it props up the UFO case du jour.

 

[boomerang]

It seems obvious (to me anyway) that the best evidence we can hope to have for Cash-Landrum are copies of original medical records. And one would think, since the plaintiffs took the time and trouble to travel all the way to Bergstrom AFB in Austin with the seemingly sincere intention of seeking compensation for injuries, that those would have been held by someone somewhere.

 

[RadarRyder]

Curt probably knows more about the C-L case than anyone else and is scrupulously fair and honest about it.
He did a Paracast episode that also featured another UFO "investigator" and had to spend a good deal of time correcting the unsupported statements (like the ones we see above) made by that guy.

Similarly, all of the crap that has been uttered about The Battle of Los Angeles takes forever to correct and is mostly false. The best part about it is that the photo that we see above is not even a real photo but a retouched and painted upon concoction.

I suspected this was the case a year before we learned the truth and tried to get to the bottom of it by working honestly with UFO buff, Frank Warren, one of the main "investigators" on the case. Frank Warren can't work honestly. In the end he made a fool of himself by childishly trying to protect his little UFO turf. And the case was exposed as another ridiculous creation by UFO fantasists.

The contrast between Curt and Frank Warren is stark. If only there were more folks like Curt.

I detailed my experience with Warren on my blog:

The Protocols of Frank Warren - Not A Ghost!

Best,

Lance

This is true sir.....but the Battle of Los Angeles link below the photo has Dr. Bruce Maccabee's study on the photo, along with the real orginal pictures, and it reveals some interesting facts......just say'n!!

 

[manxman]

lancylad being the standard hypocrite that debunkers are, its all about the money for you aswell lance, lets not be forgetting that, and 'debunkers R us inc' are not above promoting their own dubious characters, such as convicted fraudster Brian debunker and critical thinker Dunning

have you ever turned a fee down lance ?.
are there any fight the good fight for enlightenment merchants with their self appointed grand titles that fight the good fight for free lance ?.

bruce is an entertainer, and nicks a few dollars here and there, we all gotta eat, your guy stole 5.2 million.

 

[ikez78]

Have we had any kind of conclusion to this case? Sounds like a government experiment? Still fascinating that this took place so close to the Rendlesham case.

 

[Sentry]

ikez7, yes. The original investigator concluded that since no black program ever surfaced, it lent credibility that the UFO was of extraterrestrial origin.

The ladies believed that due to the helicopters being present that it was either a military operation (or that they learned something about the UFO if it was not something of theirs). The most widely held belief is similar to what the witnesses thought, that it was a secret military test gone wrong.

The skeptical community is not unified in declaring it a complete hoax. Phil Klass, Dr. Gary Posner and Robert Sheaffer seem to think at least some of the injuries could have been self-inflicted. Jim Oberg and Tim Printy seem to think that it may have been a military operation witnessed, but do not speculate on the UFO itself.

I'm a broken record on this topic, but we know this case from only UFO investigator's reports, not raw data. We need to see the original testimony and evidence, not base our conclusions on second-hand information.

 

[RadarRyder]

lancylad being the standard hypocrite that debunkers are, its all about the money for you aswell lance, lets not be forgetting that, and 'debunkers R us inc' are not above promoting their own dubious characters, such as convicted fraudster Brian debunker and critical thinker Dunning

have you ever turned a fee down lance ?.
are there any fight the good fight for enlightenment merchants with their self appointed grand titles that fight the good fight for free lance ?.

bruce is an entertainer, and nicks a few dollars here and there, we all gotta eat, your guy stole 5.2 million.

Well said sir!!

 

[RadarRyder]

ikez7, yes. The original investigator concluded that since no black program ever surfaced, it lent credibility that the UFO was of extraterrestrial origin.

The ladies believed that due to the helicopters being present that it was either a military operation (or that they learned something about the UFO if it was not something of theirs). The most widely held belief is similar to what the witnesses thought, that it was a secret military test gone wrong.

The skeptical community is not unified in declaring it a complete hoax. Phil Klass, Dr. Gary Posner and Robert Sheaffer seem to think at least some of the injuries could have been self-inflicted. Jim Oberg and Tim Printy seem to think that it may have been a military operation witnessed, but do not speculate on the UFO itself.

I'm a broken record on this topic, but we know this case from only UFO investigator's reports, not raw data. We need to see the original testimony and evidence, not base our conclusions on second-hand information.

Sir,
But how do we get the raw data on such an incident??? When the government denies that these things happen and does it's best to make fools out of anyone who witnessed or was directly involved, destorys or denies any documents exsist, and ignore FOIA laws. Most of the time all investigators have to go on is eyewitness accounts and rarely affected human tissue or clothing. If you have credible witnesses who do not know each other, and can give basically the same account as others, would you not have to base your decisions on "what is more probable than not"?? (I do appreciate your skepticism as it is often good to have ones feet brought back down on the ground.)

 

[Sentry]

RadarRyder, getting the raw data can be hard. In some cases, there are police or military reports or documents that become part of the record and be examined. In this case there are several early records, a call by a witness to the National UFO Reporting Center, a tape recorded statement, and some hand-written testimony that were all created before the case became UFO investigation. Shortly thereafter came media interviews, which are less reliable. There was an official interview with the witnesses at Bergstrom AFB. In 1981 there was an investigation by the Texas Department of Health. Then, in 1982 there was an Army investigation, and due to a FOIA release we have records from it (and the Bergstrom interview).

For the above, part of this was in case records, which went in to the MUFON case literature. Some of the other material appeared in other UFO group's publications or files, and in the TDH report on radiation investigation was unpublished. There are also declassified military records of secret operations near the time and place, but none that reveal a direct connection.

You ask how to get the raw data. We can't always, but that has to be the goal, trying to get the earliest statements, reports or whatever is available. Your comments about FOIAs are probably correct. For UFO matters in particular, since the barrage of demands for UFO documents in the late 1970s, the government has avoided creating them in the first place. I'm told by people with experience it has become harder in recent years to receive good results from even general FOIA requests.

You mention testimony from multiple witnesses, and I agree that's valuable when it is truly independent. In this case they only appear after the story was presented in the news. If there had been multiple calls in to the police and the newspapers at the time of the incident, then those would be far more convincing.

When a UFO skeptic or investigator hands us a tidy little package that proclaims details about an event without producing reliable evidence, then we should reject it, no matter how good his story is. I don't have the precise solution to the problem, but a big part of it is not to allow a single source to control all the information on a case.

 

[boomerang]

We need to see the original testimony and evidence, not base our conclusions on second-hand information.

Sentry, I may have asked you this before. But do you see any hope whatever of obtaining original medical data and evaluations ?

 

[Sentry]

Boomerang, why is it my job to always be a wet blanket? Yes! But, everyone will be disappointed.
There medical records or copies were held by a few people, among them John Schuessler, lawyer Peter Gersten, Betty Cash and very likely Vickie Landrum. Both Cash and Landrum relatives may choose to release the files or authorize their release from other parties.

Now, the bad news. I have copies of letters from Dr. Rank who examined the medical records. One letter is to Vickie Landrum, basically one of reassurance, the other is to John Schuessler, a more formal analysis of those records. Additionally, Dr. Rank was communicating with Allan Hendry, who was commissioned to investigate the case. Here are some quotes I gathered for an unfinished article:

Other key documents are the report of Allan Hendry of the Center for UFO studies, and the report from Radiologist Dr. Peter Rank, who Schuessler had analyze Betty Cash’s medical record. His report states that examinations of Betty’s “have shown no serious abnormality and that includes her x-rays as well as the blood test.” And later, “there are no signs of serious injury to date.”

The Hendry report states:
“All tests performed (white blood cell counts, eye examination, skin tests, a biopsy, etc.) showed nothing.”

This may be the reason the medical records were guarded by Schuessler, they don’t show the life-threatening radiation injuries he claimed.

If the medical report reveals anything we don't know, it probably relates to Betty Cash's pre-incident health. We already know a little about that- she'd had heart surgery in Alabama in 1977, and had had some further complications that were treated by prescription medicine in 1979. Presumably, she was still taking heart medication at the time of the incident.

Earlier upthread, you discussed "...the best evidence we can hope to have…" and it gave me pause to reflect on just what I'm pursuing. The medical records aren't it, or at least not enough. We need concrete proof of helicopter involvement, or at least evidence in that direction. That alone would not solve the case, but it would prove it to be a genuine event. That's the key, no matter what the UFO was.

 

[Stagger Lee]

"some of the injuries self inflicted"
oh brother

 

[Sentry]

"some of the injuries self inflicted"
oh brother

I get along okay with Robert Sheaffer, but one of the commenting readers at his blog, "Zoam," claimed:

The other symptons they exhibited were NOT consistent with radiation sickness but with chemical poisoning, most probably a household cleaner. They applied it to their forearms, scalps and faces, and drank it as well. Betty, the enthusiastic lead hoaxster, apparently overdosed on the chemical cocktail, while follower Vickie suffered significantly less.
Bad UFOs: Skepticism, UFOs, and The Universe - by Robert Sheaffer: Between a Beer Joint and Some kind of Highway Warning Sign: the "Classic" Cash-Landrum Case Unravels

That's not actually the worst thing he says!

The scenario he describes sounds the work of idiots, yet if they were hoaxers, they were both masters and failures.
Despite being widely believed, the ladies died broke.

 

[RadarRyder]

"APRO insinuated that Andrus, Schuessler and Hynek had ties to the US intelligence community.

A rogue member of APRO intercepted the story and sold it to the Weekly World News.

Schuessler was unaware of any road repairs to the UFO incident scene until 1982.

Bill Moore was circulating a story that the UFO was a secret USG nuclear-powered vehicle.

APRO made bold charges in print that the UFO was definately a military test craft.

APRO stated that by Schuessler promoting the event as a UFO, he intentionally or not, was allowing the USG to disavow it as their project.

APRO accused Schuessler of withholding case details including medical records.

APRO charged that MUFON was desperate for a good UFO case and was milking it for publicity.

In response to APRO’s US secret project allegations, Schuessler told Lt. Col. Sarran to question them.
Schuessler rejects their charges and accusation, accusing APRO in return of being sensationalistic.

Schuessler denied allegations that the US is paying Betty Cash’s medical bills (but does not disclose they are partially covered by Medicare)."

I see what you mean sir,
It would appear, at least on the outside, that orginizations such as APRO, MUFON, and so forth are at times "their own worst enemy." I guess it comes down to ones own integrity, and the passion to gather and submit the details objectively.

 

[boomerang]

Boomerang, why is it my job to always be a wet blanket? Yes! But, everyone will be disappointed.
There medical records or copies were held by a few people, among them John Schuessler, lawyer Peter Gersten, Betty Cash and very likely Vickie Landrum. Both Cash and Landrum relatives may choose to release the files or authorize their release from other parties.

Apologies as recollection of some of your and others' previous posts on the subject of medical records is now coming back to me. I guess I am trying to salvage some shred of genuine mystery here. I think we had pretty much established that no one's injuries were consistent with either ionizing or non-ionizing radiation. Expert opinion seems to lean in the direction of of chemical injury.

One would also think that if authorized parties, especially family members, were genuinely perplexed and outraged by Betty's and Vickie's experience, that they would make medical records public.

At any rate, thanks for calling the evidence as you see it.