The 1980 Cash-Landrum sighting and investigation

[boomerang]

I've come to believe the mystery of Doty's true role and intentions will remain as secret and enigmatic as the phenomenon itself.

 

[Burnt State]

In this case Doty seems to be on the mark. The great quantity of helicopters certainly suggests the object was a known earthbound quantity. I do find it curious that there are no further reports of this helicopter escort. Certainly something that dramatic must have been seen by others.

 

[mike]

In this case Doty seems to be on the mark. The great quantity of helicopters certainly suggests the object was a known earthbound quantity. I do find it curious that there are no further reports of this helicopter escort. Certainly something that dramatic must have been seen by others.

According to Kevins blog

A Different Perspective: Cash Landrum and Crash Retrievals

A few witnesses were found who said they had seen the fleet, but no physical evidence or documentation was ever located

So i take it from this there were other witness 'to the helicopter fleet

 

[Sentry]

Here's a map I've made trying to identify& locate all the alleged secondary witnesses to either the UFO or the helicopters:
Map of the Cash Landrum sighting with witness locations.

One thing to consider before getting too excited about these witnesses. None of them reported anything until the story broke with pleas for anyone who had seen anything to come forward and help the witnesses.

 

[breddell]

Here's a map I've made trying to identify& locate all the alleged secondary witnesses to either the UFO or the helicopters:
Map of the Cash Landrum sighting with witness locations.

One thing to consider before getting too excited about these witnesses. None of them reported anything until the story broke with pleas for anyone who had seen anything to come forward and help the witnesses.

This is great info Sentry. Just out of curiosity, have you heard of any sightings of groups of black helicopters in the same area since the CL incident?

 

[Burnt State]

Here's a map I've made trying to identify& locate all the alleged secondary witnesses to either the UFO or the helicopters:
Map of the Cash Landrum sighting with witness locations.
One thing to consider before getting too excited about these witnesses. None of them reported anything until the story broke with pleas for anyone who had seen anything to come forward and help the witnesses.

Thanks a lot for the clickable map - nothing like interactive UFO case examination, very diligent proper work, Sentry.

Thanks Mike for the blog link.

Was there a pre-existing medical condition? Was she already undergoing any chemotherapy or has it been already established that illnesses began immediately following the encounter?

The helicopter witnesses appear to be there, but do any identify them escorting the craft as I didn't read that on the map, unless I missed an entry?

 

[Sentry]

Yow, just finished recording the show and my nerves are shot! I'm going to hold off saying much more about the case until the show airs, and then address any unanswered questions, as well as to correct any of my likely factual gaffes. Another project is to put up a directory of where to find good information on this case, and here's a start:
The Computer UFO Network
Cash-Landrum Close Encounter Case
Interview at Bergstom Air Force Base August 1981
TRANSCRIPT (HTML) - .PDF format - .Zipped HTML files
PDF: Some Documents Related to Damage Claims filed
PDF: Some Documents Related to Lawsuit: Cash, Landrum vs USA

 

[Jeff Davis]

Holy flying saucer flaps! That CUFON link contains a monstrous amount of UFO information. I can't believe the little esoteric treasure trove of major UFO goodness located in the "other" files directory link. Thanks!

 

[Sentry]

New article by MUFON's Shawn Jason on the case
Is the Cash-Landrum UFO incident solved? - Tucson ufo | Examiner.com

Nice piece, but based on the same old faulty premises.

 

[Trajanus]

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.

In fact there have been a number of reported UFOs that relied at least in part on rocket power. Socorro was an example. Besides the aliens seen then, IIRC another was seen with entities which looked like beer cans with stick legs so a government project doesn't seem likely.

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.

I dunno....why didn't they test it in a restricted area, where no civilians could see it? And look at what Cash suffered from the heat and radiation of that thing. Imagine the hell a pilot would go through inside it.

 

[Randall]

In fact there have been a number of reported UFOs that relied at least in part on rocket power. Socorro was an example. Besides the aliens seen then, IIRC another was seen with entities which looked like beer cans with stick legs so a government project doesn't seem likely.
Why didn't they test it in a restricted area, where no civilians could see it? And look at what Cash suffered from the heat and radiation of that thing. Imagine the hell a pilot would go through inside it.

Good points, however neither object was so strange as to outperform technology within our grasp at the time. Experimental rocket propelled platforms had been built and tested, and different shaped housings don't suddenly turn them into UFOs ( alien craft ). Also, it may be unusual, but not incredibly so, for test vehicles to be outside an official testing area. For example it may have been en-route from one base to another. Lastly, being outside and exposed to the open exhaust is much different than being inside a rocket or jet. The heat is emitted away from them, not into them, and there is sufficient material in and around the engines to shield crews against heat, UV and microwaves. Plus, if it were manned, necessity would dictate a design that sufficiently protected the pilots. All in all, there is insufficient reason to think this object represented alien technology. Maybe it was, but all these factors go against classing it that way.

The bottom line is that IMO we need to have a demarcation point where we can say it's safe to assume something is alien as opposed to manmade or natural, and I propose that if our own technology is capable of producing the object at the time, then we should be making that assumption rather than taking the leap into the realm of something alien. Perhaps we might be missing some genuinely alien craft in that process, but I don't think the time spent trying to figure it out is worth it when there are cases that are unambiguous.

 

[Sentry]

Perhaps we might be missing some genuinely alien craft in that process, but I don't think the time spent trying to figure it out is worth it when there are cases that are unambiguous.

As you can imagine, I strongly disagree. I'm taking a breath here, as to not start a flaming reply.
Let's start where we agree. Cases that are so indistinct that they could plausibly be things like balloons/Chinese lanterns and aircraft lights can be laid aside. Especially if there are more compelling cases to be examined.

Where we seem to differ is on the manmade craft. The possibles seen doing strange things in civilian areas should be of interest, if for no other reason to eliminate them as ET candidates. But I'm also very interested in anything manmade that resembles a UFO. The military is not really like a hot rod shop, souping up planes and building neat toys just because they're cool. These projects are driven by a specific need, the ability to perform a mission (often surveillance/reconnaissance). If a "UFO" is something like that and flying over and near populated areas, I think we have a need to know, and a duty to investigate it.

Also, whatever anyone believes about UFO secrecy, these same methods and techniques must be used to conceal any operation of manmade UFOs. The same curtain would have to cover them all, and I want to see whatever is behind it.

 

[Sentry]

I may have confused things by continuing to post about the case in the show discussion thread:
Chris Lambright and Curtis L. Collins | The Paracast Community Forums
I'll take things back over here unless responding to a question about the show itself.

One huge hurdle to determining what caused the injuries was the secrecy surrounding the medical records. John Schuessler fiercely guarded them. I half remembered Betty Cash had said a thing ot two about the records, and searched my files, finding two mentions so far:
1983

Betty Cash, who declares she has “nothing to hide,” said she’d sent a release to Dr. Chenoy (Shenoy, cardiologist), long acquainted with her medical history, giving him permission to discuss her case.
Florida Today 12/4/83
Close encounter of a frightening kind: Trace Effects The Cash-Landrum Incident by Billy Cox

(Cox called Dr. Shenoy's office repeatedly, but was unable to reach him, and was left with the impression Shenoy did not want to talk.)
1989

Mrs. Cash said she declined to provide her medical history to (Phil) Klass because of the possibility that the information would be needed for a congressional hearing. Mrs. Cash and Mrs. Landrum are now circulating petitions for a congressional hearing, and they are encouraging people to write their congressmen.
Birmingham News, Birmingham, AL. 02/29/89
LINCOLN WOMAN SAYS SHE SAW, WAS HURT BY UFO IN TEXAS by Scottie Vickery

(Nothing came of the efforts for the Congressional hearing.)

 

[Randall]

As you can imagine, I strongly disagree. I'm taking a breath here, as to not start a flaming reply.
Let's start where we agree. Cases that are so indistinct that they could plausibly be things like balloons/Chinese lanterns and aircraft lights can be laid aside. Especially if there are more compelling cases to be examined.

Where we seem to differ is on the manmade craft. The possibles seen doing strange things in civilian areas should be of interest, if for no other reason to eliminate them as ET candidates. But I'm also very interested in anything manmade that resembles a UFO. The military is not really like a hot rod shop, souping up planes and building neat toys just because they're cool. These projects are driven by a specific need, the ability to perform a mission (often surveillance/reconnaissance). If a "UFO" is something like that and flying over and near populated areas, I think we have a need to know, and a duty to investigate it.

Also, whatever anyone believes about UFO secrecy, these same methods and techniques must be used to conceal any operation of manmade UFOs. The same curtain would have to cover them all, and I want to see whatever is behind it.

When you say, "... for no other reason to eliminate them as ET candidates." and I say, "The bottom line is that IMO we need to have a demarcation point where we can say it's safe to assume something is alien as opposed to manmade or natural." we're essentially saying the same thing. That's why I started a thread on them here, and dedicated a whole section to books about aerospace on my website here. To clarify further: When considering a case, there are only three main classes of probability:

1. Manmade
2. Natural
3. Alien

So if I'm primarily interested in item 3. ( Alien ) then we need to rule out points 1. ( Manmade ) and 2. ( Natural ). How do we do that? It's quite simple. If we had the technology at the time to produce something sufficiently similar ourselves, then ruling out point 1. is virtually impossible, and therefore there is insufficient reason to consider 3. ( Alien ) as the greater probability. For me that indicates that it's time to move on to the next case. However if those cases are something that appeals to someone else, I certainly don't have a problem with that, and I do believe I mentioned that I liked the show, and have taken some interest in the case here in the forum. I hope that helps.

 

[boomerang]

Let me toss a small piece of chum in the water. One of the most anomalous aspects of the UFO is the almost endless variety of reported shapes and types. How and why would terrestrial engineers devise an almost endless variety of "models", as it were? The only technical reason that comes readily to mind is that what we are seeing is not what is really there. This could be due to a kind of gravitational lensing effect. Or perhaps the vehicles are manufactured apparitions anyway. Or for the ETH persuasion--Is earth a kind of cosmic convenience store where a variety of travelers stop over?

 

[Randall]

Let me toss a small piece of chum in the water. One of the most anomalous aspects of the UFO is the almost endless variety of reported shapes and types. How and why would terrestrial engineers devise an almost endless variety of "models", as it were? The only technical reason that comes readily to mind is that what we are seeing is not what is really there. This could be due to a kind of gravitational lensing effect. Or perhaps the vehicles are manufactured apparitions anyway. Or for the ETH persuasion--Is earth a kind of cosmic convenience store where a variety of travelers stop over?

I'll bite. I'd say that an "endless variety of "models", is an exaggeration. There are basically three distinct types, mother ships, shuttles, and drones. If we compare them to something like our own aircraft carriers, then our own engineering has produced a comparable variety of aircraft and drones. So to me, the variety of configurations doesn't necessitate multiple civilizations.

 

[boomerang]

I'll bite. I'd say that an "endless variety of "models", is an exaggeration. There are basically three distinct types, mother ships, shuttles, and drones. If we compare them to something like our own aircraft carriers, then our own engineering has produced a comparable variety of aircraft and drones. So to me, the variety of configurations doesn't necessitate multiple civilizations.

On this point, we will probably disagree and I will blame our old arch nemesis: a dearth of hard data. Reported shapes can certainly be grouped into general categories, i.e. "saucer, cigar, triangular, spherical". It's just that one gets the impression (or at least I do) based on decades of witness descriptions and drawings (mostly poor) that appreciable numbers of articles are not alike enough to constitute anything like a "model type" If one is on the ETH branch of the possibilities flowchart, perhaps there needn't be a "model type". They could be "manufactured" as needed and scrapped in a matter of hours, for all we know. But we are, in any event, left in the same old ET vehicle vs "projected stagecraft" quandary. And with another contender we might label "ET or ED Stagecraft".

Hypothetically: If three observers at dispersed locations were to take decent resolution photographs of daylight discs over a week long period, we could easily match for like vehicle planforms. This would not be adequate proof they actually were physical planforms. But the phenomenon has never given us (to my knowledge) anything like this luxury of analysis.

 

[Trajanus]

... it may be unusual, but not incredibly so, for test vehicles to be outside an official testing area. For example it may have been en-route from one base to another.

Then what was the point on coming down near Betty and cooking her like that?

 

[Sentry]

Then what was the point on coming down near Betty and cooking her like that?

You weren't asking me, but I'd like to comment on that.
It almost sounds like a silly question, but it's really not. In this case, or in any mystery, we have to start solving the puzzle by looking at the pieces we have. What picture is taking shape, and what is does the information at hand imply about the unknown elements? Along the same lines, crimes can be solved by looking at the damage caused by the wounds. If it was a gunshot wound, we may find the bullet, and from this, determine the caliber, and trace the trajectory and distance. Continuing the GSW analogy, in this case we are muzzled by not having evidence to examine, just a description or photo of the victim.

As to the point of injuring the witnesses, based on the behavior of the craft, it does not seem deliberate, based on the witnesses description of its troubled attempts to regain altitude. Maybe this was a malfunctioning craft (of whatever origin) venting energy. As Chris Lambright pointed out in the show, about the only purposeful behavior observed was the apparent piloting of the UFO between the pine trees to hover over the road. I'd add to that, the seeming retreat at the approach of the helicopters.

In the thread on the show, I posted a list of examples where secret military events were exposed due to them having accidents (some nuclear) near population centers. The military behavior in this case is plausible, what is not at this point, is a realistic candidate for the aerial vehicle described as causing all the trouble.

 

[Randall]

Then what was the point on coming down near Betty and cooking her like that?

It seems more a case of the car happening to intersect the objects flight path than the object targeting the car. Had the car come by 30 minutes later or sooner or maintained a safer distance, in all likelihood nobody would have been hurt.