Cash/Landrum Incident

Semperfi1975

Unregistered
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
4
Just curious as to everyones thoughts on this UFO incident, happened years ago, 1981 I think.

As far as UFO stories goes, this one is pretty convincing. As for what it was, who the hell knows. Does anyone have any insight or evidence that this was a hoax of some kind?

The most logical answer would be some kind of test aircraft by the military, but according to witness testimony, I couldn't imagine that we had this type of technology back then (and probably not now either, at least not that I have seen)...though I freely admit I could be wrong.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
And this UFO incident would be . . . ?

~~ Paul
This one:

http://www.ufoarea.com/encounters_bob_pratt.html

On that dark night in 1980, a large strange machine swooped down from the sky and then hung noisily just above the highway in front of Betty, Vickie and Colby, blocking their way for fifteen minutes. By the time it left, it had exposed them to emissions of some kind that seriously damaged the health of all three.
 
From the link Bjorn posted:
The Cash-Landrum incident has to be one of the most thoroughly investigated cases in the history of ufology. I myself spent hundreds of hours interviewing Betty, Vickie and other witnesses and studying the case, but my efforts pale when compared to what John Schuessler has done. He has devoted years to investigating every aspect of the case - the encounter itself, tracking down other witnesses, checking the medical records and histories of the three witnesses, consulting medical authorities, helping Betty, Vickie and Colby get medical and legal help, probing the military and government angle, and, most important, keeping the case alive when others had abandoned it.

"Most thoroughly investigated". Yet, in the list of all the things that have been investigated, no where does it say anything about physical evidence, the causitive link between the experience and the witnesses illness, why other witnesses were not ill, no physical data collected from the site, no photographs or video, etc, etc, etc.

In other words, as long as we rely on subjective statements and data that can be widely interpreted, it looks spooky.

I'll look into it more, but on the surface it seems more of the usual...a posited massive environmental effect with absolutely no physical evidence.
 
Huntsman said:
From the link Bjorn posted:
I take no responsibily whatsoever for the content .... :)

I'll look into it more, but on the surface it seems more of the usual...a posited massive environmental effect with absolutely no physical evidence.
The lady's fingerprints were 'permanently imbedded in the dash'. I wonder if anyone took care of this piece of evidence?

http://ufos.about.com/library/weekly/aa091498.htm
 
First: Paul, not trying to be rude here, but if you read the subject line, perhaps...just perhaps...you would not be asking which incident I was referring too.

Second: Look, I'm not trying to be a "woo-woo" here. I will freely admit that I am not a rocket scientist by any means, although I am not the dumbest rock on the planet either. I'm just an old gung ho Marine who has an interest in the possiblity (note: I said the POSSIBILITY) of ET's flying their little ships around our planet. I will also admit I have yet to see ANY evidence that this is happening. All cases, that I have researched, I have been able to conclude as a hoax, or natural phenomenon, etc., with the exception of this particular case.

While it may be foolish to believe that little green men may be visiting us...it is also foolish to completely discredit anyones story simply because of a lack of physical evidence. If someone said that they saw a rainbow, do you need physical evidence from them to believe their story? Of course not, because we have all seen rainbows in the past. But if someone claims that they saw something that they could not explain, and wanted to find out what it was, would you attack them for not having physical evidence that they saw it? Or would you try to help them figure out what it was that they saw? Possible other explanations for example. That is what I am looking for here.

Now, I doubt many of you would consider this as evidence of any kind, but it's an interesting link nonetheless:

http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/cashlandrumsarran01.htm#doc
 
From the transcript (again):

BC: Well, I guess that the dashboard melted, her fingerprints right where she pressed on my dash, when I threw on my brakes to save, to keep from going under it... they're imbedded in my dash.

CTD: And is that car here today?

BC: No, it's in Alabama; I flew out.
The car is not mentioned anymore.

The 'symptoms' of the victims are described in the interview, however I see nothing about burnt fingers.

Since you know a lot about the case, do you know more about these pieces of physical evidence? The dash must certainly be on display somewhere?
 
Semperfi1975 said:

While it may be foolish to believe that little green men may be visiting us...it is also foolish to completely discredit anyones story simply because of a lack of physical evidence. If someone said that they saw a rainbow, do you need physical evidence from them to believe their story? Of course not, because we have all seen rainbows in the past. But if someone claims that they saw something that they could not explain, and wanted to find out what it was, would you attack them for not having physical evidence that they saw it? Or would you try to help them figure out what it was that they saw? Possible other explanations for example. That is what I am looking for here.
Look here for one nice summary of other explanations... In particular, I like the Zond-IV re-entry stuff...we know exactly what it was, so we can see how well the eyewitness accounts stack up. Thus:
... On 3 March 1968 the news agency of the Soviet Union announced that the spacecraft "Zond IV" had been placed in a low "parking orbit" around the earth and would soon be launched into "outlying regions of near-earth space" (Sullivan, 1968). The mission was unsuccessful. At about 9:45 p.m. EST on 3 March, hundreds of American observers near a line from Kentucky to Pennsylvania saw a majestic procession of fiery objects with sparkling golden orange tails move across their sky. The spacecraft was disintegrating upon re-entry. Most observers saw two or three main pieces, while observers near the end of the path saw more. These objects were soon identified by NORAD as pieces of the Zond IV probe or its rocket booster and this identification was finally confirmed 1 July 1968 (Sullivan, 1968).

This case put us in the rare and fortunate position of knowing exactly what was involved even before we began to investigate the many UFO reports that were generated.

In brief, many of these reports were quite good, but there is an admixture of spurious elements that are astonishingly familiar to students of the "flying saucer" literature. The latter vividly illustrate the problem of conception and interpretation, and shed light on the entire UFO phenomenon.

Consider the conceptions that may be generated if one perceives three bright point sources moving across the night sky at constant angular separation of, say, 5°. The most objective observer may report as directly as possible the percept: three point sources moving with a constant angular separation. But this is just one end of a spectrum. A less objective observer and, from our Zond IV data, a demonstrably more typical one may introduce subtle elements of interpretation. He may report three point sources flying with constant angular separation, or three lights flying with constant angular separation, or three lights flying in formation. These changes in conception may be subtle, but when the observer reports his conception to a second party, they may produce vividly different conceptions (especially if the second party is inclined to believe "flying saucers" exist). Further toward the other end of the spectrum, but less typical than the above examples, a highly unobjective observer may introduce totally spurious elements. He may report three craft flying in formation. He may, for example, conceive the idea that the three point sources are connected, since they maintain a constant pattern. He may even imagine a dark elongated form connecting them so that they become lights on a cigar-shaped object, or even windows on a cigar-shaped object.

This spectrum of the conceptions of observers is not based on mere theorizing. It is directly derived from the Zond IV observations.
 
Bjorn,

I have absolutely no knowledge of what happened to the dash, or the car for that matter. And why the hell would the dash be on display somewhere?

Don't know how important that is anyways. Think about it, if a dashboard was produced, and it did have firngerprints on it, most on here (probably including myself) would claim that they simply heated up the dashboard by another means (blow torch, lighter, etc.) and then touched it (even if that might not be the case.)

AGAIN, I am looking for anyone that may have further insight into this case. Is there any knowledge of the "victims" pasts that would make us question they're vallidity?...Does anyone know of any type of possible government test aircraft (my theory) that could be used as the explanation for what they saw?...does anyone else have any theories or possible explanations? Or is this possibly something that simply does not have an explanation to it?

So far all I have got is someone saying "There is no dashboard on display, therefore this story is full of s#!t." This is right up there with the old South Park "Chewbacca defense" in my opinion.

"Ladies and gentleman of the jury, the prosecution has not provided the murder weapon, therefore, we'll have to assume that Ron and Nicole spontaneously bled out" - Johnnie Cochran.
 
Mercutio,

Thanks for the link and info.

I would accept this as a real probablity, although it does not explain the "victims" injuries.

I myself saw something about five years ago, was late at night, it was shaped in a V formation, moved slowly, was silent, and had an erie glow to it. Seemed to be flying roughly 100 yards or so off the ground. Needless to say, it intrigued the hell out of me.

The next night I sat on my porch with a pair of binoculars at the ready...sure enough I saw a similar shaped object, almost identical to the one the previous night. Using the bincolulars it was easy to conclude that what I was looking at was nothing more then some white birds flying in a "V" formation, reflecting the lights from the city on their undersides. I am well aware that our eyes like to play tricks with us.
 
Don't know how important that is anyways. Think about it, if a dashboard was produced, and it did have firngerprints on it, most on here (probably including myself) would claim that they simply heated up the dashboard by another means (blow torch, lighter, etc.) and then touched it (even if that might not be the case.)
For once, it seemed like there must have been some physical evidence, even interesting enough for the Army to ask about. Such evidence would support the story, lack of it (especially when it seems only the victims ever saw the dash) works the other way.

Assuming that the store is true, wouldn't the dash immediately be secured and tested?

What about the victims lacking burn-marks?

What about the ground where the incident took place, was it burnt? Did anyone check? The trees?

As you point out, sometimes physical evidence will be challenged or doubted, but in this case it looks like it wasn't there in the first place.
 
Well, I guess that the dashboard melted, her fingerprints right where she pressed on my dash, when I threw on my brakes to save, to keep from going under it... they're imbedded in my dash.

I stop considering a story when statements such as this are made. It is ridiculous and requires backing up immediately when it is uttered.

Then people want to question why we want evidence. Pictures of the dashboard fingerprints and the melted asphalt, for instance.

20 something sh*thooks should have awakened the dead, too.
 

Back
Top Bottom