Chris Lambright and Curtis L. Collins

Someone goofed big time. On iTunes, the latest show is in reality the show from the previous week on Richard Shavers. The show description indeed says its Chris Lambright and Curtis L. Collins, but that's not what the actual recording is.

The copy available for download on the home page is the right one, however.

 

Now that I have listened to the program, I still wonder if the "UFO" was an experimental nuclear aircraft. Though this raises the question of why the radiation sickness wasn't immediately deadly. Maybe the radiation in question was of the microwave variety. In any event, a terrestrial explanation seems most likely.

I'd like to add that Curtis (aka Sentry) did a great job.

Too bad Schuessler's book is out of print. Its going for $135 on Amazon.com.

 

Check out "The Age of the UFO" edited by Peter Brookesmith. It collects articles from the UK magazine "The Unexplained", including a 3-part article by John F. Schuessler on the case. At 12 pages, not as lengthy or detailed as the book, and absent later developments, but it has good coverage of the key events and pictures from the case in full color. You can find it used on amazon for under $5.00.

Thanks for your kind words, but as I listened to the show, I'd have to say I choked. There were many issues I wanted to raise about the case (in order to emphasize the value of reexamining it), but instead got bogged down by my choppy retelling of the events. Still, I'm delighted for the opportunity for the case to receive some attention and to be introduced to some new people. I’m glad Gene and Chris were able to help make the information a bit more digestible, and I’m especially grateful for Chris Lambright agreeing to participate because of his direct experience and access to the original witness testimony.

First, let me correct some of my worst verbal gaffes:

• John Schuessler first met Betty Cash on Feb. 22, 1981 (not the 2nd).
• Liberty County Dept. Sheriff Jon McDonald sighted a diamond-shaped UFO in the area on May 22, 1982.
• The damages asked for in the legal effort were a total of $20,000,000. Ten million for Betty Cash, and five million each for Colby & Vickie Landrum.

Here are the key points I intended to make about the Cash-Landrum events:

• This case is important, because whatever it was, it is the tip of a UFO iceberg. By uncovering more on the military involvement, we should be able to trace the activities to specific operations and personnel. Much can be learned from this, whether or not this was an ET craft the helicopters were following. Even if we only study just the UFO investigation mehthods here, we can learn both from the successes and failures in a case which features some compelling evidence and eyewitness testimony.

• Despite hard work and good intentions serious errors and inaccuracies crept in to the investigation led by John F. Schuessler of MUFON.

• The popular version of the story is an inaccurate portrayal of events, the most visual example is the erroneous portrayal of the UFO itself.

• Since the case was effectively owned and controlled solely by MUFON, it raises questions to the bias of the investigation and choosing what evidence to include or eliminate.

• The Medical records should be open for review by qualified, unbiased experts (whether or not the records themselves are made public).

• The Schuessler/Project VISIT files on this case should be open for examination by researchers. There is the potential for overlooked leads or connections that were not apparent to the time due to government classification.

• Based on today’s knowledge of the military events of 1980, new investigations and FOIA request should be targeted at the Special Operations Forces active in classified missions during the winter of 1980.

That’s it for now, but later, I’ll post some more detailed (and corrected) repies to the questions asked by the forum.

Thanks,
Sentry aka Curt Collins

 

As unbelievable as it seems, military tests, exercises and dangerous material transports occur near populated areas fairly often. Most remain secret unless there's a problem. Here's a few examples:

On May 24, 1963, Kenneth S. "Dutch" Collins was making a subsonic engine test flight (of the A-12), flying very slowly just above a solid layer of clouds. He was accompanied by Jack W. Weeks in an F-101 Voodoo chase airplane. When Collins saw that Weeks's F-101 could not stay up with his A-12, he told Weeks to continue on to the base alone. Shortly afterward, when Collins flew into the clouds, his A-12 suddenly stalled, pitched up, and went completely out of control-the result of an erroneous airspeed reading. Collins was able to eject safely from the airplane, which went into an inverted flat spin and then crashed 14 miles south of Wendover, Utah.

July 11, 1986 Maj. Ross E. Mulhare flying F-117A
Bakersfield, CA. At about 1:45 a.m., Mulhare's airplane went into a steep dive and smashed into a hillside about 17 miles northeast of that city, just inside the Sequoia National Forest. Mulhare was killed.

May 22, 1957, Kirtland Air Force Base, NM- Nuclear Accident near Albuquerque NM
(Conventional plane carrying nuclear material) The nuclear weapon was completely destroyed in the detonation which occurred approximately 4.5 miles south of the Kirtland control tower and 0.3 miles west of the Sandia Base reservation, creating a blast crater approximately 25 feet in diameter and 12 feet deep. Fragments of the bomb and debris were scattered over a one mile area. A radiological survey of the area was conducted, but revealed no radioactive contamination beyond the lip of the crater.
As these accounts demonstrate, operations of this nature probably happen more frequently than reported. For instance, a Department of Energy trailer carrying plutonium from Richland, Washington, to New Mexico overturned on icy roads on Interstate 25 near Fort Collins, Colorado, in December 1980.

The Cash-Landrum incident occurred about 20 miles outside of Houston, and it is plausible that this was a military operation gone wrong. But, just because it sounds good, we can't rule out other scenarios.

 

I mentioned this last time you brought up that point: The sighting didn't take place over a residential area. It took place over a remote stretch of road bounded by trees. "At about 9.00 p.m., while driving on an isolated two-lane road in dense woods ..." ( Wikipedia )

 

Goggs, thanks for the compliments. Before Jim Moseley asked me to check on this case, I'd spent months looking into allegations that most UFOs were military projects related to remotely piloted vehicles (RPVs) or unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). That ran pretty deep, but didn't really lead anywhere beyond giving me a basic familiartiy with the technical capabilities of military aircraft. That served as a good foundation for looking into the Cash-Landrum case where the UFO could quite possibly be a secret military platform, perhaps witnessed during a major malfunction.

Enough about me, let's get back to the case. As promised, here's the expanded

Forum Q & A​

Breddell:
I've heard that witnesses to this event were exposed to radiation. If true, what was learned from the Cash-Landrum radiation exposures? Has there been a documented report to correlate their radiation sickness symptoms with known sources or types of radiation fields? There are a lot of differences between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and acute vs. chronic exposures (and all combinations).. I would think there symptoms should be qualitatively linked to a known source type.

A: The symptoms were not a precise match for ay radiation exposure. Once again we are challenged by what really happened versus what we were told about it.
John Schuessler newspaper quote on medical treatment from 1981:
“There was no diagnosis: the doctors did not know what they were dealing with.”
“You can’t guarantee it’s radiation sickness, but it looks like it.”
“Other things can cause these (symptoms) but not likely the whole package.”

That is one of the most controversial aspects of the case. Further, only Betty Cash received hospital treatment for her injuries. Vickie Landrum did not seek treatment for Colby’s and her complaints, except to see optometrist Dr. Steve Chandler for her eye problems. He said: “an allergy to sunlight, chemicals and other things could have caused the same symptoms as radiation”.
There was a medical examination of all three performed at Houston Medical Center in connection with their appearance on ”That’s Incredible!”
Dr. Mel Spira (a plastic surgeon) said on the program that some of Betty’s symptoms resembled radiation exposure.
“Dr. James Easley, a Houston radiologist, examined the women more than six months after the incident but said his results were not conclusive because he saw the women so late.”

The primary supporters of the witnesses possibly receiving radiation comes from doctors that never examined them, MUFON medical consultant Dr. Peter Rank, radioligist. He examined the UFO case file, photos of the witnesses and the available medical records. Dr. Richard Niemtzw also favored the radiation theory, but his examination was based soley on published reports and he was not allowed to view the medical records.
The physican who directly stated the exposure was from radioactive materials is Dr. Bryan McClelland, who started treating Betty Cash in the mid 1980s. He is not a radiologist, his specialty is Family Practice and Geriatrics.
In Vickie Landrum’s report to NUFORC, and in a letter to Dr. Peter Rank, she said that the original check of Betty’s blood test for radiation was negative.

wwkirk:
Stanton Friedman has reported that he worked on nuclear powered aircraft. Do you think the UFO in this case may have been such a prototype aircraft? (If so, then the government was certainly liable for the illness the observers developed.)


A: No, and in a rare flip-flop of position, neither does Stanton Friedman. In in 1985:
I don’t think it was an alien spacecraft, frankly. I think it was a nuclear powered aircraft.
On the PARACAST: September 25, 2011 -- John B. Alexander and Stanton T. Friedman:
“I worked on nuclear airplane engines back on the late 50s. It seems unlikely...
... didn’t seem appropriate to me... I don’t think it was one of ours.”
(About 1.5 hours into the show.)

Even if it was a nuclear powered aircraft that somehow burned the witnesses to differing degrees without leaving trace radiation and the automobile, as John Schuessler noted there needs to be some other radiation sources to account for the other reported symptoms. The craft had produce an improbably broad spectrum of radiation, and yet not emit a lethal dose.

Solarion:
How well is Colby Landrum doing since that awful exposure to the "UFO Radiation"?
tom1961: Colby would be 37 now has any one talked to him lately.

A: Colby Landrum is alive and well in living in the Dayton area. He was examined for a 2009 episode of UFO Hunters by Betty Cash’s doctor (not a radiologist) and given a clean bill of health. One of the many fears was that he would be rendered sterile from the alleged radiation exposure, but he has a little blond daughter that he calls his “mini-me”. Colby has been approached for interviews, but prefers not to talk about or relive the incident unless compensated to do so. He’d agreed to participate in a Kickstarter financed documentary with Dan Marro, but the funding failed.


Han:
I have read that around 20 CH-47 "Chinooks" were seen.
Question (1) Has a FOIA relating to the helicopters i.e radar data or flight plans etc been attempted?

A: Yes, several times, and next to nothing was produced. There were classified operations involving helicopters in a planned second attempt to rescue American hostages held in Iran. some of those documents were classified until 1992, and FOIA requests may not have been responded to in this area. (Although Col. Sarran insists he examined this possibility.)

Han: Question (2) Were ALL of the Helicopters CH-47s?

A: No, but the double-rotor helicopters were all they originally mentioned, supposedly because they were the most prominent. Some were described as smaller, traditional helicopters with a single central rotor. The claim that there was more than one model used makes the sighting more plausible, as covert military exercises conducted involved using such a combination.

Han: It is my understanding that the "CH-47 Chinook" has a crew of at least 3 usaully 4 and sometimes five if we take the lowest number 3 crew per Helicopter that would be roughly 60 crew or "witnesses". Also getting 20 chinooks ready to fly would take a lot of ground crew and a lot of planning, especially if they were to fly in formation.(imagine the noise that they would make!) It is also my understanding that "U.S" Chinook squadrons consist of 12 aircraft so if over 12 were seen then it would seem to suggest 2 or more squadrons.

A: Your information seems good, but recalculate for about half as many CH-47s mixed with maybe the smaller OH-6. The exact numbers of helicopters is not known, but I agree that it would have been a massive operation involving possibly over a hundred people.

Han: Finally: the "CH-47" has a top speed of around 200 mph which although fast for a Helicopter is significantly slower than an Aeroplane. were any "jets" seen flying at the same time?

A: None reported. The UFO was never described as flying rapidly, and in fact was described in terms more closely matching a balloon, hovering, floating drifting etc. When the UFO and helicopters flew away from the initial scene, Betty waited a few moments for her eyes to readjust before driving away. Even with a head start, the witnesses were able to catch up to the UFO and copters three or so miles down the winding road.

joeyk22:
Has there been any recent attempt to learn more about the government's involvement in the case through FOIA requests? If so, any success?

A: Yes, but my request was for a duplication of previously released data, where I was hoping previously redacted material would be available- no luck. I’m not aware of anything relevant, but am hoping to try again. This is complicated somewhat in that if this was a secret exercise, it involved a blend of Special Forces from different military branches. Figuring what to ask for and who to request it from is the first step.

joeyk22: Do either of you know of any sightings since 1980 that resemble the craft in question?

I’ve not examined this since finding out about the original description. John Schuessler reported in the 1983 MUFON Journal:
”A similar object was sighted near Cleveland, Texas, on May 22,1982. Jon McDonald, a deputy sheriff for Liberty County, was on routine patrol..”
McDonald’s description:
"It was in a diamond shape, y'know, all four corners were rounded; but it was in a diamond shape." He went on to describe the color as grayish; like a dirty galvanized steel — "a dirty, dirty gray." And it was large. "I'd say you could fit ten cars into the square it would form if it was placed on the ground.”
He described it as having flashing red lights on the body and two white “headlights”.

joeyk22: Is it possible a government contractor was doing a test flight of some sort and this gives the U.S. government plausible deniability when it comes to disclosing information about the object if in fact it is "man-made"?

A: I think Joey has been peeking at my notes! IF it was a test craft, this is my top pick for a scenario. Unfortunately, there are no plausible contractor candidates. This touches another area, why would they be conducting test flights so near a populated area? As unreasonable as it sounds, it really happens, from anything to plane exercises to the transport of nuclear materials and weapons. It probably happens way more often than we can imagine, as our documentation come mostly when these things crash near cities. I’ll put up an article on this on my blog in the near future, that’s too deep a tangent to explore here, but it does offer some credibility for the man-made craft hypothesis.

Flatwoods:
I've always wondered about this case and the fact that it happened within days of the Rendlesham Forest/Bentwaters incident. Both Cash-Landrum and Bentwaters appeared to have military involvement. A coincidence? Has anyone ever looked for a connection between the two?

A: Jenny Randles and her collaborators examined the comparison in “Sky Crash”, but I’ll say coincidence just from the lack of specific similarity. The UFOs are only share a few superficial characteristics- they fly and behave unlike one another and the experiences of the witnesses are also completely different. There are some that do try to stretch the similarities to make this part of a global ET operation, and others have claimed that Rendlesham was a “smokescreen”, a staged event to fake a ET UFO so that the military operation in Texas would be obscured.

Sentry-Curt Collins

 

Great job guys, really enjoyed the show!

One question: I read years ago that one of the branches of the military offered to buy Betty Cash's Oldsmobile, but she refused to sell it.
Do you guys know if there is any truth to this? And does anyone know the eventual fate of the car?

 

I had to search:
Twice burned, not shy/Stung by radiation, ridicule, trio stick to UFO story CINDY HORSWELL Staff
SUN 09/15/1991 HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Section C, Page 1, 2 STAR Edition
Cash still has the 1980 Oldsmobile she drove that night. She says the intense heat embedded Landrum's handprint on the padded dashboard.
Also, she said two unidentified men in military uniforms once offered to buy the car. Dr. McClelland, who said his secretary witnessed the offer, suspects somebody wanted to get rid of the car because "ion (electrically charged atom) tracks are visible on the chrome."
Claim repeated in television program:
The Unexplained: “Close Encounters” July 9, 1998
Narration claims: “Strangely, however, the military repeatedly attempted to purchase Betty Cash’s vehicle, but she refused.”

This sounds like a tall tale, especially since the branch of service is not identified. It almost sounds like a Men in Black "silencing" attempt out of a Gray Barker story. In any case, John Schuessler chose not to include it in his articles and book on the case. (He does allow other examples or rumor and hearsay in, such as the story of the overnight road repair.)

Ken Storch of MUFON picked up the case investigation for a while in the 90s, and he claims the car was eventually traced to a new owner in Alabama, but has not been reexamined.

 

Is there any merit at all to the notion of the secret road repair event? I was just looking at the History Channel's look at core samples from the road at the site and far from the site. Both samples appeared to be similar and no real conclusive evidence of anything was found outside of frequent surfacing.

 

Chris heard the story directly from Vickie Landrum in 1985, but we don't know her source. The first reference I can find in print was
APRO Bulletin Vo. 30 No. 9 September 1982
The Cash Landrum Case Analysis by Coral E. Lorenzen
"“Incidentally, the road on which the C-L incident took place has since been re-paved!”"
To which John Schuessler replied, "How much of the road? Why?", indicating that he was unaware of it at that time.
There was no mention of the road repair/replacement on his first speech on the case, and by that time he'd revisited the scene with the witnesses for the filming of the "That's Incredible!" episode in July 1981.
Whatever happened to the road was many months later, not a hasty cover-up as later claimed.

There's more controversy about the road, or more specifially the portion that was alledgedly burned by the UFO. Like the road repaving, the exhaust burns were not mentioned in the first year or more of the case, but later the whole episode was woven into a mythic tale:

“ "They were able to point out a spot on the road that indicated that it had been heated to an extreme level of heating. It was burned, and it was very clear to the naked eye. Several weeks after we went to the spot and saw this burned area, someone came along, dug up the road and hauled it away and replaced it with new asphalt. Some of the witnesses that watched this happen said that people brought in unmarked trucks, dug up the road, put the material on the trucks, covered it with a tarpaulin, and drove away."
-John Schuessler, Unsolved Mysteries February 6, 1991

 

Correction and Clarification!
When Gene asked me how I got started on the case, I said something along the lines that Jim Moseley didn't have access to the Internet, and that I volunteered to help him track down some information. Mostly true, but not completely accurate.
First, Jim chose not to bother with computers and the Internet, too much bother!
From Saucer Smear #390, May 1, 2006

I didn't mean to slight Vince, as he clearly did a great job of keeping Smear up to date. What I was doing was targeted research as needed for Jim.
I was just on call, Vince was constantly delivering!


UPDATE: Vince Ditchkus replies-
Vince wrote: "No problemo. I made a cold call to Jim, introduced myself, and explained what I could research for him on the net. That led to a great friendship, and my wife and I visited Jim in Key West twice. At first I was sending him reams of material, then he suggested that we "target" the material as he didn't have time to digest 500 to 1,000 pages a month. I would also get "special requests" from Jim on specific subjects, which either led to something or nothing. I knew Jim had other excellent researchers such as yourself, Chris Roth and other long time 'Smear' reader/fans. There were perks to being on the 'Smear' editoral staff, first there was the money, then the groupies 8^), and I'd get an 'advance' copy of 'Smear' before he shipped an issue out to the masses, that's how I wound up with the final issue of 'Smear' which Jim was able to prepare and print although I know he was deathly ill. I very much miss Jim, we had some rollicking conversations, often the more we drank, the better they got! Cheers, Vince."

 

Good show! Good questions. I'd heard the debunkers talk about how there couldn't possibly have been so many helicopters and that there were no records of any helicopter flights for that day and so on, so it was really interesting to hear that comment about helicopters in the area for "effect", whatever that was supposed to mean. It's one of those cryptic lines that belongs in a classic sci-fi conspiracy movie.

• In the wake of the contradictory evidence to the nuclear powered rocket theory, I did a little reading and found that rocket engines produce ultraviolet and microwave radiation in addition to high temperatures, all of which are non-ionizing but could conceivably result in radiation like effects and symptoms.
• Another thing I discovered is that in nuclear powered engines, the exhaust isn't a direct product of fission, so no related radioactive residue would have been released or found unless the engine's containment had been breached. So either way, it seems reasonable to link the sound to the flame, in which case, even if the exhaust wasn't for primary lift, it could still have been the source of the radiation effects.
• A note for Chris. The combination of certain medications and bright sunlight can cause nails to come loose.
• The hand print on the dash without burning flesh might also be explained by microwave radiation which can penetrate beneath the surface, possibly softening the material beneath while leaving the surface relatively cool; enough not to cause an immediate burn on contact.
• UV radiation is stopped easily by the car body. Glass also stops it. So that could explain the significant difference of exposure between outside and inside the car.

 

I will just say "great program" ! And yes--this case is by no means dead. It's time to interview those involved who are still alive and kicking before they go "Roswell".

 

I'm hoping Chris Lambright can find the original information about "for effect"that he saw in his FOIA request results. I'm convinced it was the handwritten note by Lt. Col. George Sarran:




In 1981, John Schuessler talked to Major Tony Geishauser, press officer:

-"Blind Terror in Texas" by John F. Schuessler, The Unexplained (UK magazine) 9(107) 2121-25, (1982)

Before visiting Texas for his investigation, Sarran called Schuessler a number of times for information on the incident. Sarran made notes during these calls. The FOIA "for effect" memo, is nothing more than an echo of Schuessler's own words getting repeated into the official record.

It is jarring then, when to hear this:
“...[Lt. Col. Sarran] also went over to Fort Hood. At Fort Hood he was at at Gray Base and someone there told him, I guess it was the the public information officer that that night, that very night that more than a hu- 90 helicopters came in from the field quote “for effect”. He couldn’t figure out exactly what “for effect” meant. And later on though, and we went back, and they did file a claim in Federal court. We went back seeking information, and in the discovery process and asked for information on those helicopters that came in. And the story was changed to there was one helicopter came in from the field that night. And you know, the discrepancy from one to a hundred is terrible. They could have made up a better story. But nevertheless, we got nowhere, is what I’m getting down to."
-John F. Schuessler appearing on Coast to Coast AM August 28, 2011 George Knapp, host.


I've got a more detailed account of this here:
Blue Blurry Lines: "-100 helicopters- Robert Grey airfield, came in, for effect”
http://blueblurrylines.blogspot.com/2012/02/george-sarran-on-ufo-hunters-episode.

Curt

 

Agreed, but this is still a fascinating case.

I vividly remember reading about this growing up in the 80s, from one of those popular at the time UK book/magazine collections called 'Unexplained', and it always intrigued me - infinitely more so than Roswell ever did.

The book also had a crude, yet eerily effective crayon-like illustration of the event, that always stuck with me over the years.

Good show - thoroughly enjoyed it!