• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+! For a low subscription fee, you will receive access to an ad-free version of The Paracast, the exclusive After The Paracast podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, plus show transcripts, the new Paracast+ Video Channel, Classic Episodes and Special Features categories! We now offer lifetime memberships! You can subscribe via this direct link:
    https://www.theparacast.com/plus/

    The Official Paracast Store is back! Check out our latest lineup of customized stuff at: The Official Paracast Store!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

The 1980 Cash-Landrum sighting and investigation


Sentry

Paranormal Adept
I became interested in the Cash-Landrum sighting a few years back while helping Jim Moseley track down some background information on it for Saucer Smear. The case is fascinating, and has a reputation as one of the best-researched UFO cases, having been investigated by reputable, highly credentialed people, John Schuessler and members of Project VISIT.

I'm still collecting information and periodically releasing updates on my blog. What I've found out is that there were a number of red herrings that worked themselves into the investigation of this case (and more still that became part of the UFO rumor mill).

One of the things that gave me a big boost in my direction was contacting Chris Lambright. Chris is an artist and UFO investigator, and he had the rare opportunity to meet twice with Vickie Landrum back in the 80s. He showed her a painting he was making based on the MUFON investigation of the case. She said they had it wrong.

Chris recently completed an illustration of the sighting based directly on case witness testimony.
Take a look the art and article at:
Quest for an Accurate Picture of the Cash-Landrum UFO
 

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
"Chris Lambright is owed a great debt for his work in getting to the truth of what was reported in the Cash-Landrum sighting."

I totally agree! Great Work!
 

exo_doc

Foolish Earthling
I became interested in the Cash-Landrum sighting a few years back while helping Jim Moseley track down some background information on it for Saucer Smear. The case is fascinating, and has a reputation as one of the best-researched UFO cases, having been investigated by reputable, highly credentialed people, John Schuessler and members of Project VISIT.

I'm still collecting information and periodically releasing updates on my blog. What I've found out is that there were a number of red herrings that worked themselves into the investigation of this case (and more still that became part of the UFO rumor mill).

One of the things that gave me a big boost in my direction was contacting Chris Lambright. Chris is an artist and UFO investigator, and he had the rare opportunity to meet twice with Vickie Landrum back in the 80s. He showed her a painting he was making based on the MUFON investigation of the case. She said they had it wrong.

Chris recently completed an illustration of the sighting based directly on case witness testimony.

Take a look the art and article at:
Quest for an Accurate Picture of the Cash-Landrum UFO
Any chance of divulging those red herrings?
It is definately one of the weirdest cases I've known. I am convinced something happened that involved high heat and ionizing radiation.
 

Sentry

Paranormal Adept
Any chance of divulging those red herrings?
That's a work in progress, but some of them have been at least partially discussed on the blog:
Part of the difficulty in this investigation comes from it being considered a UFO case, as that carries a lot of baggage. UFOs are supposed to behave certain ways, and as Major Donald Keyhoe taught us, there must be a government cover-up. This causes a UFO investigator to leap to conclusions, when say, a county road is repaved.
The case is fascinating and has pretty well stood the test of time without getting too many embellishments grafted on. This case occurred at about the same time of the Rendlesham Forest incident, and while the Roswell incident was being reborn. Compared to them, the Cash-Landrum sighting remains very, very close to what was initially reported. Still, there are a few ugly barnacles that need knocking off.
 

boomerang

Paranormal Adept
Sentry, What is your take on the authenticity of the Dr. McClelland? His testimony, if valid, would come close to the "smoking gun" level. More importantly--where are Betty Cash's medical records? Have any been preserved? Such records could be regarded as solid evidence of a high strangeness event.

I'm guessing they either are not or never were in the public domain. Although, one would certainly expect Cash and Landrum to have these at hand as part of their attempt to sue the federal government.
 

Sentry

Paranormal Adept
Dr. McClelland is authentic and seems sincere in talking about what he believes about the case. All he can speak about with any authority is his direct experience in treating Betty Cash. He is not a radiologist and makes some statements about the case that are outside his field of expertise and border on rumor. See Houston Chronicle, 9/15/1991 Twice Burned, Not Shy. Keep in mind, he was not one of Betty Cash's original doctors, he started treating her in Alabama two or more years after the incident.

As best I am able to determine from reviewing the literature, only part of the medical records were not released by Parkway Hospital, those dealing with her blood work. However, the blood work is said not to show anything unusual, Vickie Landrum stated so in her initial report of the incident, and I believe I can find comments to the same effect by Dr. Shenoy, Betty's cardiologist.

Have the records been preserved? Maybe- John F. Schuessler had copies and distributed them to Dr. Peter Rank, Peter A. Gersten, and a few others trusted or associated with the case. Supposedly, MUFON has copies of the case file, but as some have stated, they seem to be a black hole for information. The medical records are very controversial; they are the "photograph" in this case, offered as proof, yet withheld to protect the privacy of the witnesses. At one time, the secondary reason given was that is was being protected as evidence for the trial. Those are no longer serious concerns.

I'd like to see the medical records released just to finally end the controversy and speculation.
 

Burnt State

Paranormal Adept
Sentry, I really enjoy Blue Blurry Lines and appreciate all your continued documenting of this most curious incident. Chris Lambright's work really adds wonderfully to the entire affair. I would like to hear more about your opinion on the event, both in responding to exo_doc and perhaps your own hunches, conclusions and/or speculations.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
The incident reeks of a nuclear powered rocket test, but when Friedman was asked about that possibility he was doubtful that the USAF had managed to produce anything that could be flown. However I would suggest that because rocket power ( regardless of the fuel ) is to UFOs what the horse and carriage is to an SST, it doesn't make sense that the object in the report was alien. Consequently assuming the Cash-Landrum incident isn't some kind of elaborate hoax ( which seems unlikely ), and because nuclear rocket propulsion has been proven to have been under development, I suggest that it's safe to assume that the object was probably a manmade test craft and the USAF denials are just that ... denials.
 

boomerang

Paranormal Adept
All very interesting. Of course, we would first and foremost seek documentation to back up the widely held claim of injury of an exotic nature. As with so many things in this field, it seems always just out of reach !

I'm trying to coax my muddled brain into recalling where and by who I saw an armchair analysis of Cash's condition in light of her rendition of the incident. Whoever it was claimed that no kind of known energy, either ionizing (i.e. X-Rays, gamma rays) or non-ionizing radiation such as microwaves would account for the type of injuries she and the others received. He (?) was of the opinion that Betty's symptoms were more in line with some kind of chemical burns and that she had naturally received greater exposure because she stood outside of the car.

I also seem to recall a short interview of a former test pilot who states he would suffer mild bouts of illness conversant with radiation exposure for days after completing a test flight of a nuclear powered craft.

Dunno....
 

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
The incident reeks of a nuclear powered rocket test, but when Friedman was asked about that possibility he was doubtful that the USAF had managed to produce anything that could be flown. However I would suggest that because rocket power ( regardless of the fuel ) is to UFOs what the horse and carriage is to an SST, it doesn't make sense that the object in the report was alien. Consequently assuming the Cash-Landrum incident isn't some kind of elaborate hoax ( which seems unlikely ), and because nuclear rocket propulsion has been proven to have been under development, I suggest that it's safe to assume that the object was probably a manmade test craft and the USAF denials are just that ... denials.
Just sharing something here honestly. There was a time when I had tremendous respect for Stanton Friedman. I have most of his books and always paid great attention when he spoke. Then I heard an interview with Friedman where he stated that in his estimation, with respect to that which might be mistaken for non-human technology, we were two years at most ahead of public awareness in terms of technological developments. That my friends is utter BS and ANYONE that has spent 1 year in this field should KNOW as much. I just thought that was the weirdest thing and have not had too much respect for the man since. Just ludicrous, and furthermore, who the hell is Stanton Friedman to state as much?

Like you Ufology, I have always considered the CL case to be one involving a human manufactured prototype. I sure appreciate Chris's added support and details in terms of the object's description. It is important to note that diamond shaped UFOs are still reported up to recent times. I am also surprised that more evidence of the dubious agent causing injury to Cash was not determined at the scene of the initial sighting event. If her injuries were as significant as is stated, shouldn't there have been ample trace evidence, if not outright scorching of the immediate area's foliage?
 

Sentry

Paranormal Adept
I'm trying to coax my muddled brain into recalling where and by who I saw an armchair analysis of Cash's condition in light of her rendition of the incident.
That sounds like the analysis done by Brad Sparks, Cash-Landrum NOT Ionizing Radiation.

I also seem to recall a short interview of a former test pilot who states he would suffer mild bouts of illness conversant with radiation exposure for days after completing a test flight of a nuclear powered craft.
That sounds like the interview from the UFO Hunters episode Alien Fallout that discusses the C-L case, where Bill Birnes interviewed pilot Bill Scott who talked about flying missions of conventional planes carrying nuclear materials.

The problem with the injuries is that we are largely dependent on second hand reporting that seems to emphasize solely the symptoms that were the best match for radiation poisoning. The other problems like the enlargement of the Betty Cash's heart sac are ignored.
 

exo_doc

Foolish Earthling
That sounds like the analysis done by Brad Sparks, Cash-Landrum NOT Ionizing Radiation.


That sounds like the interview from the UFO Hunters episode Alien Fallout that discusses the C-L case, where Bill Birnes interviewed pilot Bill Scott who talked about flying missions of conventional planes carrying nuclear materials.

The problem with the injuries is that we are largely dependent on second hand reporting that seems to emphasize solely the symptoms that were the best match for radiation poisoning. The other problems like the enlargement of the Betty Cash's heart sac are ignored.
Good article link! So it seems more consistent with some sort of chemical contamination than ionizing radiation by this article. I need to pull out my old collection of info on this and look through it again.
 

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
Good article link! So it seems more consistent with some sort of chemical contamination than ionizing radiation by this article. I need to pull out my old collection of info on this and look through it again.
I agree! This one thread has gotten me further up on this case than I have ever been. The article centered around the hypothetical support of a chemical agent as opposed to radiation is incredibly interesting and served to remind me of another of my favorite cases wherein chemical burns are possibly present. The Stephen Michalak Encounter at Falcon Lake - Falcon Lake, Manitoba, Canada - May 20, 1967 - UFO Evidence

The possible technology herein these reports is just over the top fascinating in both cases.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Just sharing something here honestly. There was a time when I had tremendous respect for Stanton Friedman. I have most of his books and always paid great attention when he spoke. Then I heard an interview with Friedman where he stated that in his estimation, with respect to that which might be mistaken for non-human technology, we were two years at most ahead of public awareness in terms of technological developments. That my friends is utter BS and ANYONE that has spent 1 year in this field should KNOW as much. I just thought that was the weirdest thing and have not had too much respect for the man since. Just ludicrous, and furthermore, who the hell is Stanton Friedman to state as much?

Like you Ufology, I have always considered the CL case to be one involving a human manufactured prototype. I sure appreciate Chris's added support and details in terms of the object's description. It is important to note that diamond shaped UFOs are still reported up to recent times. I am also surprised that more evidence of the dubious agent causing injury to Cash was not determined at the scene of the initial sighting event. If her injuries were as significant as is stated, shouldn't there have been ample trace evidence, if not outright scorching of the immediate area's foliage?
I'd have to hear the quote you mention in it's proper context before I could judge whether or not Stanton was off base. The statement that our most advanced technology is only two years at most ahead of public awareness can be taken a lot of different ways. Most advanced technology is only about that far ahead, some much less ( consider computers ). Then there is the issue of what one means by "awareness". The public is often aware of things before official disclosure. Plus Stanton is the only ufologist I know of that has actually worked on nuclear powered rockets. That alone makes him the most credible person to comment on the possibility. I think he's also done a good job of defending his position with respect to Roswell and the MJ-12 issue. Where Stan has been losing me lately is in his more recent foray into the abduction phenomenon.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
Good article link! So it seems more consistent with some sort of chemical contamination than ionizing radiation by this article. I need to pull out my old collection of info on this and look through it again.
The article would seem to agree with Stanton Friedman's opinion as well. However there are a couple of loopholes. The most obvious is that a nuclear powered rocket would give off heat, so that part of the argument against it doesn't apply. The other part is that heat, stress and Sun radiation can cause symptoms the same day. I know this because I used to live in a mountain lake resort and have overdone it on the first day more than once, and I'm still here to tell about it. Also, the hydrogen fuel used in some models produces a good deal of UV radiation during engine use, and the way the engines worked meant they were not blowing out great clouds of radioactive gas. Only if some kind of malfunction or containment failure happened would the engine produce heavy traceable amounts of radiation. See the guys in the picture below watching one ... notice how it reminds us of the Cash-Landrum object ...

 

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
I'd have to hear the quote you mention in it's proper context before I could judge whether or not Stanton was off base. The statement that our most advanced technology is only two years at most ahead of public awareness can be taken a lot of different ways. 1.Most advanced technology is only about that far ahead, some much less ( consider computers ). 2.Then there is the issue of what one means by "awareness". The public is often aware of things before official disclosure. Plus Stanton is the only ufologist I know of that has actually worked on nuclear powered rockets. That alone makes him the most credible person to comment on the possibility. I think he's also done a good job of defending his position with respect to Roswell and the MJ-12 issue. Where Stan has been losing me lately is in his more recent foray into the abduction phenomenon.
1. Could you provide any form of substantiation to support this claim? Personally I think this statement is basically akin to sheer assumption.

2) "Awareness" in this particular case as used by SF is absolute in it's contextual definition. I was hanging on every word MR. Friedman said, which BTW were contained within a simulcast interview on ATS that a nice young lady conducted with Stanton at approx. 5:00 pm EST on a Saturday (?) one afternoon possibly 2-3 winters back. According to it's context derived meaning, awareness in this instance added up to "familiarity". A level of familiarity that would prevent those reporting UFOs (the public, that is) from routinely mistaking human manufactured prototypical and/or experimental aircraft as being mistaken for "alien craft". To me, in my best and most rational estimation, stating as much testifies to a false sense of comfort, almost equating to utter naivety. Where's the substantiation here Stan? I am not asking anyone to provide proof of a negative here either. I can name several well known (now) military projects whose documented release predated public awareness for well over 20 years, a few even more, let alone 2!

I would however, in humble cartoon turn about fashion, prefer to insist on substantiation from those short advanced proto tech window advocates who are in turn making their own adverse claim that "we are only two years out at best". I think to myself, "you do have the credentials required to speak openly and authoritatively for all of the US Military's off base black contracted private sector technology based R&D programs/projects, don't you?" :p Especially at a time when technology (as we know it!) has never even come close to making the kind of exponential jumps and strides that it's made in the last 30 years.

Ufology, who the heck is qualified to do that? Certainly no one that I know personally, nor even anyone that I know of at all. Einstein and Tesla were both publicly acknowledged geniuses. However, to the best of my understanding, #1 they weren't the first amazing innovators and they won't be the last, #2 neither could read minds or at least professed an ability to do so. The adverse being the very claim made by those who profess to be in the know concerning the unknowable. Personally, I suggest using a much less "ridiculously untenable" position to forward one's postulations upon.

I agree that Stanton would be the man with respect to Nuclear propulsion considerations, but now I am seeing the case in a new and fascinating light. This being now that I have read the report supporting the more likely chemically induced injury of Betty Cash. Honestly, I find that mind blowing.
 

USI Calgary

J. Randall Murphy
Staff member
1. Could you provide any form of substantiation to support this claim? Personally I think this statement is basically akin to sheer assumption.
My comment, "Most advanced technology is only about that far ahead, some much less ( consider computers )." wasn't based on mere assumption. I've been doing work on personal computers for over a decade now, and the advances in the next generation technologies have typically been around the 2 year range. Moore's Law is one well known axiom with a proven historical track record, and it is well known that processor manufacturers attempt to keep their technology very secret up until the time of release. Their methods include strict security protocols in highly secure buildings and the use of code names and other security measures. In 2010 somebody smuggled out a next generation iPhone 4 from Apple. Then last July the same thing happened with the iPhone 5. So when I say "most secret technology", it's hard to deny that computer related technology makes up a huge portion of all advanced technology, that it is developed under secrecy, and new versions are released every couple of years. Then there is all the evidence surrounding the exponential growth of information technology. So not are we getting next generation formerly secret technology into our hands every couple of years, it's many times more powerful. Just look up one of Kurzweil's or Kaku's videos on technological advancement. I hope these examples are sufficient to clarify the statement you quoted.
2) "Awareness" in this particular case as used by SF is absolute in it's contextual definition. I was hanging on every word MR. Friedman said, which BTW were contained within a simulcast interview on ATS that a nice young lady conducted with Stanton at approx. 5:00 pm EST on a Saturday (?) one afternoon possibly 2-3 winters back. According to it's context derived meaning, awareness in this instance added up to "familiarity". A level of familiarity that would prevent those reporting UFOs (the public, that is) from routinely mistaking human manufactured prototypical and/or experimental aircraft as being mistaken for "alien craft". To me, in my best and most rational estimation, basically equates to utter naivety. Where's the substantiation? I am not asking anyone to provide proof of a negative here either. I can name several well known (now) military projects whose documented release predated public awareness for well over 20 years, a few even more, let alone 2!
Perhaps you could link us to the video and time code? You have your interpretation, but I wouldn't mind seeing it for myself anyway.
 

Jeff Davis

Paranormal Adept
My comment, "Most advanced technology is only about that far ahead, some much less ( consider computers )." wasn't based on mere assumption. I've been doing work on personal computers for over a decade now, and the advances in the next generation technologies have typically been around the 2 year range. Moore's Law is one well known axiom with a proven historical track record, and it is well known that processor manufacturers attempt to keep their technology very secret up until the time of release. Their methods include strict security protocols in highly secure buildings and the use of code names and other security measures. In 2010 somebody smuggled out a next generation iPhone 4 from Apple. Then last July the same thing happened with the iPhone 5. So when I say "most secret technology", it's hard to deny that computer related technology makes up a huge portion of all advanced technology, that it is developed under secrecy, and new versions are released every couple of years. Then there is all the evidence surrounding the exponential growth of information technology. So not are we getting next generation formerly secret technology into our hands every couple of years, it's many times more powerful. Just look up one of Kurzweil's or Kaku's videos on technological advancement. I hope these examples are sufficient to clarify the statement you quoted.
Perhaps you could link us to the video and time code? You have your interpretation, but I wouldn't mind seeing it for myself anyway.
Like I stated, with respect to the SF interview, it's there if you want to check it out. I don't fool with ATS anymore. Incedentally, just because you work on personal computers (I have built them for years now and know them somewhat well too) doesn't mean a thing. Come on! Like I stated, where's the substantiation for your claim and yes that's a retorical question because you, or no one else for that matter, can provide as much. Kurzweil is a pop scientist/experimenter/developer/think tanker. I hardly consider him or Kaku indications of anything other than cutting edge publicaly acknowledged pop scientific speculations. Certainly not spokes people for cutting edge black military based technology developments.

Way too much assumption there Sir.
 

Goggs Mackay

Administrator
Staff member
The incident reeks of a nuclear powered rocket test, but when Friedman was asked about that possibility he was doubtful that the USAF had managed to produce anything that could be flown. However I would suggest that because rocket power ( regardless of the fuel ) is to UFOs what the horse and carriage is to an SST, it doesn't make sense that the object in the report was alien. Consequently assuming the Cash-Landrum incident isn't some kind of elaborate hoax ( which seems unlikely ), and because nuclear rocket propulsion has been proven to have been under development, I suggest that it's safe to assume that the object was probably a manmade test craft and the USAF denials are just that ... denials.


But why would anyone transport anything to do with such a test, that was obviously 'in progress' or just finished, over a populated area? Any such testing would happen far from public eyes surely?
 

Top