The Cash/Landrum UFO Case

Philo_T

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
1,216
Likes
14
Points
69
#31


That's an old hack writers' trick from the pulp fiction days. It orignated with typing '123' as a placeholder for an indeterminate number to be later searched for and replaced with the correct value. On the old mechanical typewriters, the '1' key often had several cumbersome linkages for various shift functions that made it hard to quickly press the key down. So, quickly, lightly, typing '123' would produce '23'. Quite soon, people just omitted the '1' altogether and just typed '23'.

Often, a sloppy proofreader or factchecker would miss one of the placeholders, and it would end up in the published story. That's why so many old news reports often refer to '23' of this or on '23'rd street, & etc.


Or, I could just be bullshitting you. :D
 

FilthyleDog

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 12, 2002
Messages
223
Likes
16
Points
49
#34
Furthermore...

Wasn't there a postscript to the Cash/Landrum story?

Apparently, one or more of the witnesses approached a military helicopter pilot who had landed in a field near to their home who was happy chatting with locals. Upon the mention of the case by the witness, he clammed up, got a bit agitated, acted suspiciously and took off in a huff.

Someone who's researched this more can probably put me right on the facts...

That Russian crash story is fascinating - one thing though...

The light gray colord craft, with no apparent "seams" or rivet patterns visible, was estimated by onlookers to be approximately the size of a small airliner, or light transport aircraft, and traveling at speeds in excess of Mach 2
I'm sure that it would be hard to make out much on anything travelling at twice the speed of sound, let alone rivets or seams!!:eek!!!!:
 

Jerry_B

Antediluvian
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,055
Likes
40
Points
129
#35
Re: Furthermore...

Filthy le Dog said:
I'm sure that it would be hard to make out much on anything travelling at twice the speed of sound, let alone rivets or seams!!:eek!!!!:
Exactly - this tends to make the whole report very fishy IMHO (and not just because it ended up in the sea).
 

FilthyleDog

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Aug 12, 2002
Messages
223
Likes
16
Points
49
#36
Indeed

Having read a bit more around the incident, it sounds as though it was a terrestrial borne plane.

Even the description (except the colour) sounds like a B2 (elongated domes on top and below - engine nacelles?)
 

zardozzz

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
195
Likes
4
Points
49
#37
Sounds like a possible "retrieved" off world vehicle, that they didnt know how to fly with its original power source. So they put in some sort of nuke powered engine, which was barely keeping it off the ground. A La the many copters carrying a saucer in the tv series Taken. I think it may have got into trouble on a test and called for assistance. but the copters couldnt get in close because of radiation risk, so they just esscorted it to some place to be dealt with later.
 

TheOrigDesperado

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
590
Likes
12
Points
49
#38
Even though I'm sure it wasn't aliens, why would any Government body - stupid as they may be - test fly a secret craft over a public highway bordered by dense forest, especially if they were having difficulty keeping it in the air?

Hmmm, as I said, I have no doubt the witnesses were telling the truth and that they were made ill by "something", but the possiblity also exists that there was no machine and that there were no helicopters, that something else happened to these people and the rest was just a memory, either implanted or as a result of intense trauma.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#39
Desperado said:
the possiblity also exists that there was no machine and that there were no helicopters, that something else happened
Which suggests the whole thing was made up (which is possible) as I doubt you'd mistake a large craft surrounded by 23 chinook helicopters for something else.
It kind of stacks up - a test run goes wrong, the craft goes off course, therefore the Chinooks are scrambled, probably containing many troops, in order to seal off the area where the craft is going to come down. It would be a hell of a thing to keep quiet, though.
Desperado said:
Even though I'm sure it wasn't aliens, why would any Government body - stupid as they may be - test fly a secret craft over a public highway bordered by dense forest, especially if they were having difficulty keeping it in the air?
Not applicable to this case but some of the night time "triangle" sightings, I can't help thinking that a good way of testing camouflage capabilities is to fly a craft over populated areas and see if it shows up in the news.

Finally, the Rendlesham connection - I recall Jenny Randles suggested that Rendlesham was in some way connected to an NSA attempt to bring down a Soviet satellite. I don't know the details (if someone does, please post them here) but would some kind of close proximity to a re-entry event be enough to cause the kinds of burns and trauma experienced by the witnesses?
 

zardozzz

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Apr 24, 2003
Messages
195
Likes
4
Points
49
#40
Desperado said:
Even though I'm sure it wasn't aliens, why would any Government body - stupid as they may be - test fly a secret craft over a public highway bordered by dense forest, especially if they were having difficulty keeping it in the air?
Possibly it just got into difficulty and the path accross the road was the quickest route to a safe destination. A very quick decision would have to be made. Getting out of the way quickly / against Number of people likely to see it.
Once it was safely out of the public view, plausible deniability is very easy. even if a thousand people saw it. they just deny and deny, all the while slipping different explainations into the media, including a few really zany ones to muddy the waters.
 

Philo_T

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
1,216
Likes
14
Points
69
#42
Back to the documented physical effects:

Witnesses injuries:
A. Radiation (radioactivity)
B. EM Radiation (microwave)
C. EM Radiation (UV) - any conjunctivitus (sp)?
D. EM Radiation (Heat) (?)
E. other


I still think the bobbing / engines firing motion sounds quite real.

Burned asphalt. That could be anything from vectored thrust jet engines (?), to highschool punks with a can of gasoline. What tempature does asphalt melt at? Does this happen often in the wild?
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,932
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#43
Dark Detective said:
Finally, the Rendlesham connection - I recall Jenny Randles suggested that Rendlesham was in some way connected to an NSA attempt to bring down a Soviet satellite.
There was a Russian Cosmos satellite re-entry over UK just before the Rendlesham sightings - details here. (First of about 17 similar pages found by Google )
In her 1998 book UFO Crash Landing?, Jenny Randles suggests that the NSA on Orford Ness had fired an energy beam into space to “jam the electronics on the Soviet military satellite and deflect its orbital path causing it to burn up in a controlled fashion”. She names the source of this energy beam as a secret radar project called Cobra Mist. And in a subsequent book, The UFOS That Never Were, she goes on to claim that the flightpath of the incoming debris altered “as if something caused the trajectory to be deflected”. Exciting stuff, if true.
But the article goes on to dispute many of Randle's facts.
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,932
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#44
Another version:
An aspect of the Rendlesham incident that is frequently overlooked was a series of (at the time) highly classified projects taking place in the area. The projects were under the auspices of the American NSA, (National Security Agency), aided and abetted by the British government, and involved the development of ‘over the horizon’ radar systems, initially code named ‘Cobra Mist’. When this project was officially terminated, it was re-activated as ‘Cold Witness’. It is possible that these experiments were a precursor to the ‘Star Wars’ anti-missile programme inaugurated by the Ronald Regan administration. There were several reports at the time of aircraft experiencing instrument malfunction as they overflew the area. Another report suggests that the experiments may have caused the premature re-entry of a Russian satellite, and this may not have been accidental. The entire project may have its origins rooted in the 1930s and in the claims of scientific visionary pioneer and genius Nikola Tesla, mentioned earlier in this article.


Tesla claimed that he could destroy "10.000 aircraft 250 miles away" by means of a mysterious ‘Death Ray’. While the terms of his claim may, on reflection, appear to be nonsensical, grandiose and bombastic, there is little doubt that they may have been solidly founded in his research. It is a matter of fact that the US government took his claims seriously, seriously enough to use his talents in various classified projects. Even now there is ongoing research into pulsed microwave devices that are designed to neutralise or destroy the electronic engine control systems associated with aircraft and vehicles. On Tesla’s death in 1943, his laboratory notes and experiments were promptly impounded by the US ‘Custodian of Alien Property’, this in itself making little sense as Tesla had been a naturalised US citizen for decades. There was no official reason for the seizure of these documents, but it is practically certain that they were scrutinised by government scientists for any possible military use. They were eventually returned, perhaps incomplete, there is no way to tell, to a nephew who gifted them to the Tesla museum in Belgrade.

Another possibility is that during the experiments with these immensely powerful microwave beams, there was an accident, somehow the fabric of space/time was breached and ‘something’ fell through. It is interesting to note that Tesla implied as much, based on his own research into resonance and frequency fifty years earlier.
(Source) But as the previous article pointed out, you don't bring down satellites passing overhead - because of their high orbital speed, re-entry takes thousands of miles. (For example, the ill-fated Columbia began re-entry over the mid-Pacific, before crashing in Texas.)

Of course, if a breach in the space-time fabric occured, all bets are off! :D
 

TheOrigDesperado

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jun 30, 2002
Messages
590
Likes
12
Points
49
#45
Dark Detective said:
Which suggests the whole thing was made up (which is possible) as I doubt you'd mistake a large craft surrounded by 23 chinook helicopters for something else.
I doubt it too. What I meant was that something occurred and a memory of UFOs, helicopters etc. was then implanted over the memory of the real events. False memories are a proven fact, alien spacecrafts aren't, Occam's Razor and all that. For example, maybe a plane was night testing a new crop-dusting powder that might cause cancer. Civilians got in the way and were contaminated, so the Government hypnotised them and implanted a UFO memory that noone would believe, thus diverting attention away from the real issue. Nobody thought to test for crop dusting chemicals and so radiation poisoning was assumed, in accordance with the implanted memories (the effects could well be very similar).

Not applicable to this case but some of the night time "triangle" sightings, I can't help thinking that a good way of testing camouflage capabilities is to fly a craft over populated areas and see if it shows up in the news.


Yeah, but you'd think they'd check it out first. Like just have a look upwards and see if there was a bloody big black thing with flashing lights hovering above them. "Gee, sir, I don't think it's ready yet, 'cos it's sort of really visible."

I don't know the details (if someone does, please post them here) but would some kind of close proximity to a re-entry event be enough to cause the kinds of burns and trauma experienced by the witnesses?


You'd need to be very close indeed - within inches - and even then I doubt there'd be enough radiation for physical effects to become noticable unless you sat on the thing for a couple of months. It would really depend on how long it had been in space, what it was made of, what it contained, etc. but you couldn't get burned from a distance.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#46
Desperado said:
Yeah, but you'd think they'd check it out first. Like just have a look upwards and see if there was a bloody big black thing with flashing lights hovering above them. "Gee, sir, I don't think it's ready yet, 'cos it's sort of really visible."
Aww come on, I was referring to sightings which are black, seen at night, and any lights only resemble other stars. :p

You'd need to be very close indeed - within inches
I think from the debunking of Randles' claims and the nature of the sighting the idea of a re-entry event doesn't fly.

The only comparable feeling of heat from such a distance that I've personally experienced is from a flare stack in a gas processing terminal at a point when the plant is shut down and flow diverted to the stack. It makes a hell of a noise and you can feel the heat from half a mile away. It's also visible for miles, at night more so. Downside to this is you're talking about tremendous amounts of fuel (a significant percentage of the national production of natural gas in the UK up in flames).
People keep mentioning "nuclear" as a possible drive, but is this really feasible? Is there a precedent that would actually generate the heat and flames seen? Or are people just throwing this in the mix to explain the symptoms of radiation burns?
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,932
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#48
Dark Detective said:
People keep mentioning "nuclear" as a possible drive, but is this really feasible? Is there a precedent that would actually generate the heat and flames seen? Or are people just throwing this in the mix to explain the symptoms of radiation burns? [/B]
US Nuclear Rocket Research
The Nuclear Engines for Rocket Vehicle Applications (NERVA) program officially began in 1961, when NASA issued a request for proposals and established the Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO). Various government laboratories had been studying the concept for several years, several contractors were already working on conceptual design, and space was a big topic of interest. The time seemed ripe.
.....
The headquarters for the reactor development was in Large, Pennsylvania. The reactors were tested in Nevada at Jackass Flats.

During the program, twelve reactors were tested, each one with modifications in fuel and control systems that provided improved power and operational flexibility.

Most of the NERVA reactors were tested in an upward pointing configuration with the nozzle exhausting hot hydrogen directly to the atmosphere. Monitoring showed that radioactive material releases were minimal and continued to be reduced as improvements were made in the reactor core designs.
...
The last engine of the series, the XE', was tested in a special test stand that allowed downward firing that simulated actual space flight conditions. It was started and stopped 28 times and operated for a total of three hours and 48 minutes, with 11 minutes at full power.

The test of the XE' occurred in September of 1969. In 1971, the NERVA program was cancelled because NASA had no scheduled requirement for its capabilities.

NERVA was partially a casualty of the headlong rush to the moon. It was not chosen as the propulsion source for that mission because of the longer time needed for development. By the time that NERVA type rockets appeared ready to move towards flight testing, Americans had lost interest in spending huge sums of money on space travel. As a result, the early 1970s saw many project cancellations at NASA.

Renewed Interests?

Beginning in the 1980s, there was a renewed interest in nuclear rocket propulsion as a result of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars ). The capability of the rockets to provide significant improvements in payload delivery was again recognized.

Most of the Star Wars related research remains classified, but, with the winding down of the program, the Air Force decided to declassify the fact that they were interested in nuclear rockets and to attempt to gain the interest of other agencies to continue the development.

Space Exploration Initiative

In 1992, there was a brief period of excitement in the space industry with the announcement of a presidential decision to pursue a Space Exploration Initiative (SEI) that would eventually result in a trip to Mars. Interestingly enough, one of the major justifications for selecting a nuclear rocket for the reference design was to reduce the total radiation dose received by the astronauts participating in the mission.
...
Copyright 1995 Adams Atomic Engines, Inc. All rights reserved.
So atomic engines had been practicable over a decade before the Cash-Landrum incident, and although the projects were officially closed down, we know of many other secret projects (like the Stealth planes) which went on for years.

(There may be other interesting finds in my Google search, but I haven't time right now to dig deeper.)
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,252
Likes
8,932
Points
284
Location
Under the moon
#49
More on Nerva and more modern ideas.
"Does that mean it's okay to say the N-word now?" asked a voice from the back of the packed room.

"Yes," replied Sackheim, directly and unapologetically
Nerva was officially cancelled in part because of environmental concerns, international treaty obligations, etc - but did it instead go 'underground'?
 

Jerry_B

Antediluvian
Joined
Apr 15, 2002
Messages
8,055
Likes
40
Points
129
#50
One would assume that such an amount of radiation being given off would also contaminate the area - AFAIK, no follow-up tests were done of the area in which this event allegedly took place. I'd also argue that some delving into the medical backgrounds of the witnesses would also be needed - we still only have their word for what happened, after all.
 

Philo_T

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jun 10, 2002
Messages
1,216
Likes
14
Points
69
#51
Damn, damn, damn, damn, DAMN!
I never claimed not to be an idiot.

Philo T said:
Back to the documented physical effects:

Witnesses injuries:
A. Radiation (radioactivity)
B. EM Radiation (microwave)
C. EM Radiation (UV) - any conjunctivitus (sp)?
D. EM Radiation (Heat) (?)
E. other
....
I totally overlooked a very likely possibilty:

F: chemical - some rocket fuels, particularly hypergolic mixes are said to be quite poisonous & cancer causing. Under the hypothosis that this was a test of a real device that malfunctioned, it would be quite likely that the witnesses were exposed to some nasty chemicals.

I don't recall, did Betty Landrum suffer from any sort of liver ailments along with all her other problems?
 

naitaka

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
432
Likes
13
Points
49
#52
From July's Saucer Smear:

We have some new info on the classic Dec. 29th, 1980 Cash-Landrum UFO sighting, in which three people driving on a lonely country road in eastern Texas saw a fiery object come down very low and cause all three of them to receive radiation (?) burns to a greater or lesser extent. As many as 23 helicopters were also seen, associated with the mystery object. Most of our "Smear" readers are already familiar with this classic case, which was investigated by John Schuessler of MUFON, among others.

There are three elements to this story: The mystery object, the injury to the people in the car, and the helicopters. It is only in regard to the latter that we have new info: A British researcher named James Easton has learned that during that period in 1980, a highly secret helicopter rescue force was training in that part of Texas. This was related to the failed attempt to rescue American hostages in Iran, earlier in 1980. A group called Task Force 158, or TF158, sought to perfect their skills through training exercises, and this was apparently done without the knowledge of any of the military bases that have been contacted, and which have denied that their helicopters were involved in the Cash-Landrum case. Or, TF158 may have just been too secret to admit to, even after all this time.

The upshot is that we now know the helicopters existed, but the rest of the case remains unsolved. As we have stated before, Schuessler could help with the medical aspects of the solution, but he chooses not to. (Long story there.) ...

Amazingly, we also have an update of sorts on the classic April 24th, 1964 incident in Socorro, New Mexico, in which a police officer named Lonnie Zamora interacted with a very loud flying saucer that landed briefly near the town. Researcher Miller Johnson of Albuquerque has sent us copies of three contemporary newspaper clippings, in which other similar sightings are described in Socorro and relatively nearby towns. In other words, it appears that over a period of about three days, there was a mini-flap in that part of the state, with named witnesses. Yet cynics like Phil Klass insist that there were no other witnesses, and that the whole thing therefore rests on Zamora's unsupported word. What a pity that it is now too late, for all practical purposes, to reinvestigate this case!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#53
Re: Re: The Cash/Landrum UFO Case

Prospect said:
How did they know they were unmarked if it was nightime? Why emphasise a point which cannot be known or verified? Few people would notice any markings on a chinook even in good daylight. However, in a good UFO story there are always unmarked military vehicles......

And, even in America, sueing the government because you became ill after seeing an alien spaceship seems a little odd.
I don't think it's the witnesses fault. The writer has to make the story as good as possible to sell/get publicity. So he asked "Did you notice any markings on the helicopters?" When the witness invariably says "No, it was pitch black outside", unmarked black helicopters are born. Or if the witness simply doesn't mention markings, you have perfectly factual unmarked helicopters :p
 

ShadowPrime

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 21, 2001
Messages
690
Likes
2
Points
49
#54
Nothing new here -- was just reading about the case, had a few musings, and did a Thread-search rather than start a new one...

Minor point... I was reading a transcript of a statement given by the witnesses, and they indicated that at least some of the helicopters had either US Air Force or USAF marked on them. It was somewhat maddening as this WAS a transcript -- one of the questioners asked if they saw "USAF" or "US AIR FORCE" (written out) on the helicopters and, apparently unable to elicit a clear response, he had them write it down (but the transcript did nt make clear what they wrote). Incidentally... does the USAF dabble much in helicopters? That may seem a dense question but while I know the Army, Marines, Navy do copter stuff, I wasnt AS sure re USAF...

I guess what I find most frustrating about the case, from what I have read, is that the 'scientific community' often rails about the lack of physical evidence, and here was a case where it would seem there was the opportunity to at least test some of what was being said. On the other hand, WHO would do the testing, I suppose...or more importantly, PAY for it? But geez... you could examine the car (the witnesses even alleged that the heat was so intense that the dashboard deformed when one of the witnesses touched it..and that it stayed that way), test for radiation, you coudl get statements from the doctors who treated the women, you could comb the area for witnesses re the helicopters (believe a few did come forward), etc, etc. Since there was a lawsuit filed I assume some of this was done, but it also seesm likely that the gentleman who helped them file the suit had relatively modest financial resources...

Guess what I am saying is that there seems to have been a maddeningly modest followup to a case that, at least on the surface, appears to provide AMPLE opportunity for test and examination (as opposed to MOST UFO cases).

Shadow
 

scotmedia

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
73
Likes
0
Points
22
#55
On 17/07/04, Shadow wrote:

"Minor point... I was reading a transcript of a statement
given by the witnesses, and they indicated that at least
some of the helicopters had either US Air Force or USAF
marked on them. It was somewhat maddening as this WAS a
transcript -- one of the questioners asked if they saw
"USAF" or "US AIR FORCE" (written out) on the helicopters
and, apparently unable to elicit a clear response, he had
them write it down (but the transcript did nt make clear
what they wrote)".

Shadow,

See:

http://www.cufon.org/cufon/cashlani.pdf

Therein:

CTD: What exactly did you see on the side of the
helicopters? what exactly did it say?

BC: Uh... "United States Air Force".

CTD: Written out (clears throat) completely long?

BC: No.

CTD: OK, what...

BC: It was round.

CTD: No, I mean you saw the words "United States Air
Force" all the words were spelled out?

BC: No.

CTD: OK, that's what I'm asking, exactly what did you
see?

CJC: Why don't you... right here on this piece of paper
where you put your name and all... why don't you write
down the words exactly as you saw them on the sides of
the helicopters.

CL: (unintelligible) -... that landed in Dayton?

VL: Shhhh.
(Pause apparently writing...)

CJC: OK. now you've written that out with a... was it
printed?... or written?... I wanted you give me exactly
as you saw it.

BC: No, it was printed out.
[END]


Perhaps not exactly clarified!

You asked:

"Incidentally... does the USAF dabble much in
helicopters? That may seem a dense question but while I
know the Army, Marines, Navy do copter stuff, I wasnt AS
sure re USAF...".

See naitaka's previous thread post, from 24/07/03.

I am the James Easton referred to.

Bottom line... 'TF158' were now 'US Army', even if the
newly established task force's helicopters still
displayed USAF logos.

I posted a much more detailed background - see the
'Ufology' thread, 'UFOs or Hot Air?'.

My enquiries are still ongoing and subject to a painfully
slow FOIA process. Incidentally, I was recently contacted
by a relative of Colby Landrum and that's proved to be
helpful.
 

whyfiles2001

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Feb 11, 2006
Messages
45
Likes
0
Points
22
#57
The Cash/Landrum Incident

Shouts of “Government Cover-Up” are a common feature of UFO incidents and are, mostly, unfounded. However, on occasion, the evidence and the obvious honestly of the witnesses indicates that the true facts of the incident are being withheld either by the Government, the Military or similar agencies. The Cash/Landrum incident does appear to be one of the occasions when the true facts were hidden by the U.S. Government and the U.S. Military.


..........At this point in time they observed a bright light moving over the tress ahead of them. This light grew larger until it seemed to be a “diamond of fire” from beneath which flames were bursting intermittently. Betty had to apply the brakes with some force when she realised that the object was right in their way, hovering some 60 yards away.

What was the UFO that was obviously of such importance to the Military?

See:

The Cash/Landrum Incident

http://www.thewhyfiles.net/cash_landrum_incident.html

This topic includes audio files of the eye witness testimony.

Geoff Richardson
www.thewhyfiles.net
 

OldTimeRadio

Antediluvian
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
5,526
Likes
120
Points
114
#58
One of the things I find most telling about Cash-Landrum is that the "melted" roadway was apparently repaired the very next day.

I can't think of another time a state highway authority has repaired even a winter pothole the very next day.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2006
Messages
13
Likes
0
Points
17
#59
OldTimeRadio said:
One of the things I find most telling about Cash-Landrum is that the "melted" roadway was apparently repaired the very next day.

I can't think of another time a state highway authority has repaired even a winter pothole the very next day.
From the Cash/Landrum article on the "The Why Files" site:

"About 3 weeks after the incident a number of men in unmarked trucks arrived at the scene of the UFO sighting and repaired the heat damage of the road. Several weeks later they returned and removed 6 inches of the surface material before repairing the road again. At the location where the Cask/Landrum incident took place there is evidence of new growth of vegetation in comparison with the well established nearby trees."

So was it the next day or three weeks later?
 

eburacum

Papo-furado
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,216
Likes
1,160
Points
169
#60
I can't see how they could identify the exact spot on a country road where this happened with any confidence, following a sighting at night.

And I wonder who reported the gang of anonymous road repair men, three weeks later? Cash, Landrum or an unspecified third party?
 
Top