An in-depth (re)view of the Cash/ Landrum case

This story smacks of a Craft test that went horribly wrong. The number of choppers in flight....is a key to the answer. Does anyone here know how difficult it is to have that many of those type choppers....opperational....on a standby....ready to go basis...never mind...the possibility that they were responding to something rather than it be a planned affair...is super unlikely.

These damn choppers are ALWAYS sidelined with a problem and they must have been pre-set rather than a response action as I doubt HIGHLY that many could get off the ground so easily. Split Infinity

Well look, it's Mr. Split Infinity.

The only way I would entertain actual nuclear material of any sort, is possibly one scenario... Some sort of NEST mission to move a reactor or some sort, or a damaged fuel container or something. Maybe an emergency where something had to be done very quickly and so they decided to move a protective casket containing the the material, by helicopter... then that caught on fire. That said, I think the chance of that is about point 0001 percent. It makes no sense. It would be the most dangerous way to move it and you would risk affecting the largest amount of people. And there would be no reason to keep it secret.

That show and what they said in the AF transcript has major discrepancies. They first said they thought is was AF because the copters said AF on the side. How are you going to see that in the pitch black at night? Then on the show one of them says it was Army. This of course, AFTER people have claimed it might have been Army. I would be interested to see the transcript from the court case, because I seriously doubt a case would be thrown out for lack of evidence, if there was sufficient evidence shown that they were exposed to radiation. That would be a very big deal, and numerous watchdog groups would be more than happy to pick up the torch for that cause. That never happened. It basically comes down to one doctor claiming they were exposed, and no documents to back it up. Doctors are wrong about stuff all the time. Just had a friend be told by the head of cardiology at a very good hospital, that he was not having a heart attack and that it was just gas. Next day he comes back... they look again... Whoops, guess you were having a heart attack. Doctors screw up. hair can fall out for all kinds of reasons. people have lost their hair just from having surgery or experiencing other traumatic incidents.

They were driving back from New Caney to the North. They originally said they made the turn (which is the big turn that bends the road to the south) and then they saw the light ahead. She said they went about one more mile... The high tension line is about one more mile where it crosses the road. The location that he showed the people on the show done for HC was just a little South of that spot. Not even a mile. A difference that could easily be made in memories from 30 years ago.

In a strike package for an insertion mission, you would have sections of different ships, responsible for different things. The first section would possibly be a security detail in H-47s, which could secure a FARP ahead of the rest of the group. Then a later section of 47s with slung or internal fuel bladders, to setup at the FARP. A third section possibly consisting of H-6s or H-60s, which would be the main insertion force that would be refueled at the FARP, then continue onto the mission destination. A 4th section that would be the follow-on group, which fly cover or do extraction. Each of these flights are separated by certain amounts of time. Training for these missions is done exactly like you would do it on the actual mission, but stopping points are done at airports or military reserves. When flying helicopters low, navigation is mainly done by using ground references. On a mission, good points of reference to use are roads/features that are identifiable in an area, but not well traveled. If you look at sat photos, you will see that, that road shows up as one incarnation or another, right down to the coast. Yet, much of it is not well traveled. These are the kinds of roads often chosen for navigational aides on cross country flights. Note, Fort Hood to the NW... A potential destination for a training flight, which could be used as a stopping point along the route. The mission being trained for at this time was a deep insertion mission, going up to 1000 miles. Learn about the history and timeline of the unit already implicated in the story.

Continued...

One ship from a section of the flight hits the lines. It would not be out of the question for a whole ship (in the case of a light H-6) to actually be caught in the lines, or a portion of one of the ships. A slung fuel load could also have been caught by itself, or pulled the copter down... thereby leaving all or a portion of it hanging, which could potentially be stretching the line and bouncing up and down. This could initiate and break ground repeated times, modifying an arc. Think being next to something like that wouldn't mess you up?

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

If you were anywhere near that, just the heated air alone could kill you. Look up arc flash injuries.

That road at night would be pitch black. You could drive right under those lines and never even know they were there. And if you were being blinded by that arc, you'd just see whatever was directly connected to it. Air survey photos of the time do show the lines there, and very few houses. Just a couple. Very remote. This is why I doubt many of the details and feel that info given by them could be mistaken. You're on a tree lined road in the pitch dark, with a brilliant light in front of you. How are you going to discern anything clearly enough to be certain of anything?

Testing is completely unfeasible as an answer. No test range. No test facilities in the area. No logical reason whatsoever to be there. The helicopters were there immediately. If the test craft is a high flyer, how do these alleged chase helicopters know where it will be so quickly? You don't do test chase with helicopters on a craft that flies high... You do it with other craft that can keep up. If it's a low flyer... What, they are just cruising around the countryside in the middle of the night with a bunch of helicopters in tow? If they are dispatched, how do they get there so quickly? This thing surely would have been spotted way before that by other people. This is not how aerospace testing works. Not even close. The Needles story is completely different... The description of that craft was much more missile like... If that story is legit at all, it would most likely be an autonomous weapon, which they possibly lost control of on the range, while it was making it's preprogramed run. The difference being... That location is well within range of R2508 and R4808/6... The two largest test ranges in the world. That makes sense. The middle of nowhere in Texas. That does not make sense at all.


My new BFF Imtor will love me for this, but... All that said... The possibility that this incident did not happen anywhere near the way they describe, cannot be ruled out. They claim that when the one lady slid forward when they stopped the car, the heat from this allowed her hand to leave a print in the dash. Come on... Is anyone going to believe that? Car plastic is made to withstand ridiculous amounts of heat while sitting in the sun. Do you know how hot that would have to be inside the car? They would have died. If you read the transcript and piece together all the details, there are major flaws. I'm not saying they're liars. I'm just saying there are flaws. They could have embellished, with the core of the story still true. According to their description, these helicopters would have passed well within range of the radar for Houston AP. That would have been easy enough to prove. Nobody did. According to my research, there was a fire station just to the south on that very same road at that time. Why hasn't anybody directly involved talked to them? Seems like they'd know about all this fuss happening right up the road. The road surface being removed? I have serious doubts. Nobody has been able to come up with more than hearsay on that.

Many questions.

reply to post by dpd11
I like the idea because it's something new and offers other options. For me though, it leaves as many problems and questions as we had before the thread was posted. I'll explain my thinking...

I've looked at helicopter crashes into power lines; they happen. The outcome ranges from power outages to pylon damage and on to wrecked helis and injured/dead crew. None of these occurred which casts doubt on an actual heli hitting the lines.

What about a slung object (any object at all) hitting the power lines?

If the helicopters were involved in an exercise, it's fair to say they'd be flying low and therefore run the risk of any suspended equipment striking the power lines. No doubt they'd be travelling at speed too. If we allow for a pilot error that failed to take into account the height of pylons, what would the outcome be? Travelling at speed with a slung object that strikes a power line would probably cause the load-bearing heli to crash. For argument's sake, let's say the heli didn't crash and the cable carrying the load somehow snapped and allowed the heli to stay airborne? We're then left with the object on the road.

What was the object?

We've thought about fuel bladders, but the amount of heat and fire generated doesn't support the idea. The bladder would be incinerated and probably take the helicopter with it. Could it be a rigid-shelled fuel container of hydrazine or similar? This wouldn't explain the description of flames coming out of the bottom and the object hovering, propellants like this, once more, would probably burn the helicopter. If it didn't, the witnesses didn't see any debris on the road or a helicopter above the object.

Was the object suspended from the power lines?

In this scenario, it's getting improbable. Let's say the heli flew past, snagged the load, the cable snapped and the object then hung from the lines. Let's say no damage was caused to the lines or pylons and the object was suspended above the road. We'll ignore the description of light and flame for now. If this occurred, how did they release the object from the lines?

Are there any other problems?

A lot of witness testimony needs to be discounted for this explanation to fit. It'd be like banging a square peg in a round hole. We'd need to trust the witness observation of helicopters, but overlook that none of them saw a helicopter slinging the object. The 'bleeping' sound would also need to be discarded. The description of flames elevating the object above the road would need to be discarded. The estimated height of the object would need to be discarded; a water tower-sized object (45m) would be a big object for a CH-47, not impossible, but very large. An object that size, depending on mass, travelling at speed into a power line would cause damage.

I think your scenario is the best-fit way to account for the helicopters. It's the best explanation for their presence...by far.

It doesn't explain what the object could be without trimming away the witness descriptions and allowing for a collision with power lines that caused fire without any damage to helicopter or power lines.

I love you guys! I never thought so many new views and ideas would arise from this thread, got to love it! It's really my favourite case and I could discuss it all day long (with you guys that's no problem )

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
At some point I may try to get hold of documentation relating to the relevant legal battle. I've only read summaries in various UFO books and much prefer to read the primary source material myself rather than rely upon accounts by other people.

I think I've seen some images of pages from those proceedings in a book or online. If you happen to have seen such an image (particularly any with the formal case name, court and reference numbers), perhaps you could post a link/reference in this thread or send me a U2U? That would be a useful short-cut for when I get around to seeking copies of relevant documents relating to those proceedings (which is nowhere near the top of my to-do list...).

By the way, this case was discussed in about 68 of the books I read as part of a project I carried out a few years ago involving reading about 1,000 UFO/SETI books. I've uploaded the relevant list of references into a table at the link below (which can be sorted by author, date and length of discussion):
www.isaackoi.com...


All the best,

Isaac

Hi Isaac,

glad you enjoyed the post! I really have to pick out the primary literature/ sources, I think your list is a wonderful place to start from! I didn't even know you have a homepage dealing with the UFO topic.

I will gladly provide you with any findings from the court documents, I think I even came across something while researching but didn't include it.

Greetings

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Maybe this document could be interesting: www.cufon.org/cufon/cashlanL.pdf

I will say that by no means do I think my ideas are absolutely a done deal, 100% for sure happened. It would be nice to go back in time and stand on the side of the road a half hour before this happened. Part of me thinks you'd see something amazing. Part of me thinks you'd see nothing. But either way, anything now is just guessing.

My thinking was that the best chance for creating most of the conditions of what they thought they saw, would be a helicopter actually hung in the wires. I think this is a possibility with the H-6, as it is fairly light, and if you stood it on end, it would look somewhat like a pyramid.

www.americanspecialops.com...

The tail could break off, and the exhaust port does come out the back. It's a turbine engine. So turn that so it's hanging with that down... and under certain conditions, you could have somewhat of a flame if the engine had not spun down... or the arc itself could be grounding and look like a flame. The chance of it getting hung that way? Obviously low. But not impossible. If they were flying slow enough, it could. The faster they go, the less likely. But when you are doing a mission with multiple sections, you have what's called a ladder that you follow. Your position in the ladder is specifically timed. So you control your speed based on how close you are to your pre-planed time along various waypoints, which would mean you may sometimes go quite slow. The one known accident involving power lines while training like this, around the same time... was an H-6. But they did not get hung up.

A slung load would be on an H-47. I would say that in a contest with the lines, the H-47 would win. It might crash, but it would not get hung up at speed, and it would mainly pass through them or take them down before crashing. And unless they were going very slow, I think a slung load would be unlikely to get hung up in them, but that could cause the initial accident. I really don't know how exactly that would work. It would depend on the strength of the lines. If the lines were strong enough, the load could hit them, then that would suddenly pull the copter to the ground before they had time to eject the load. I think it would all depend on how fast you are moving. An H-60 would also probably be too heavy to get hung up in them. There is a possibility of some unknown invention they may have come up with for the mission that could be slung from the helo. I have no idea what that would be though.

I think it would be possible to have a crash there and cover it up due to the nature of the mission they were planing for. The area was pretty remote at that time. I mean, if people can believe they could cover up some radioactive contamination and all this other stuff, then I don't know why not a helicopter crash. Of course, it seems like it would make more sense to just admit there was a helicopter accident. But once a story is out, then you run the risk of more details coming out. At this time, most people in the military would not have even known this was going on.

More...

My feeling is that when you have mystery, or a rumor or story, or whatever you want to call it... There will typically be bad info, but also shreds of correct info mixed in... and that is where the core of the truth is. Reading all the things that the women said, I have to say that I just don't think they were very good witnesses. If you read the AF transcript carefully, you will find many comments that don't make sense, are just not correct, or embellished. This may not be deliberate, but it just tells me they could be mistaken about many things.

One interesting point... She says they went farther (south) and stopped at 2100 and 1960 to turn towards Dayton... and at that point, she claims she saw the copters moving off towards the AP to the west, but also claims they were heading towards Crosby. Which doesn't make sense because Crosby would have been to the south of where they were stopped. Unless they first went west then south. Which in a way sort of makes sense, because over the scene of the event, the airspace for the AP is controlled 10k to 2k. If you go west from there, on the other side of the lake is where the 10k to surface control area starts for the AP. So a VFR flight would typically avoid that space. So you could turn south and avoid that. But you would definitely still be on their radar, and that many copters would definitely get their attention on the radar. She also says that at that point, she saw more copters coming, but didn't wait to find out what they were doing. Unfortunately she doesn't state from what direction. But this might lend credibility to the idea of a multi section flight package.

BTW... On the most recent sectionals, the power lines are marked... however, there is an area right around the spot of the alleged event that is colored in as urban area, and it does not show the lines there. They start and stop at the edges of the urban area marked.

Also... Keep in mind that the cop claimed he saw helos, but not this alleged object with them. I think there's a possibility that the helicopters may not have been directly involved at all. Perhaps something happening with the power lines alone, that caused the injuries, and the helicopters just happen to be coming through and came over to investigate... perhaps thinking that another one of their flight or another aircraft HAD hit the lines. What would actually cause the malfunctioning lines or what the object they claim to have seen could be, I do not know. But the intent of the helicopters to me, one way or another... seems most likely to be the scenario I described in terms of the training route and flight package sections. I have found info claiming that this could have been done off ships, just off shore during this time, for this training... but I have not found proof.

They also state that they had photos of the road taken a while after, and they show the AF people those. That would clear up the resurfaced road story, as it would be clear to tell from that. But I have never seen those photos anywhere.

I do not go by anything in the Wiki on this, or websites, because just like most of these stories, people have added a bunch of stuff to it that was never mentioned by the original people involved.

BTW... I have contacted power companies and orgs and got nowhere.

At any rate... There's a whole lot of confusing info about the story.

Originally posted by Dalbeck
reply to post by IsaacKoi

 

Maybe this document could be interesting: www.cufon.org/cufon/cashlanL.pdf

Interesting... Unfortunately it doesn't uncover much more. But it's interesting that they mentioned a NEST team... The lawyer did a pretty good job digging that up for a possible scenario. Where they failed was going after the AF. All the AF had to do is say they don't have H-47s in their inventory (which they didn't) and that was the end of that.

I think it's flawed to just pick and choose what parts of the witness's story you want to believe and throw out parts that don't line up with your theory (not directed at dpd specifically, just saying in general).

The problem is, the 'helicopter in power lines' theory just doesn't really match the eyewitness descriptions at all. I just think they would be able to tell if it was a helicopter tangled up in power lines, but this isn't what was described. Also, as someone else pointed out, I've never heard any instances of power outages at the time of this event and while there is testimony from at least one independent witness about the burned road, I've never heard any testimony about any destroyed/damaged power lines in the area that this event took place either.

This is such a frustrating case because the evidence says something incredible did happen, but we'll probably never know the truth. If it was some kind of prototype craft, it's never been declassified and by this point it surely has evolved into something else or been scrapped.

reply to post by dpd11
There's a scenario which doesn't require moving the location or discounting most of the witness testimony. We can leave out power lines too.

What if they had arrived towards the end of the incident rather than in the middle? The light they saw down the highway could have been a USAF operation to recover a downed object. Imagine something crashing and/or burning on the highway and a recovery team trying to retrieve it. The way the object doesn’t look like a conventional aircraft could be explained by it not actually being an aircraft at all, but maybe a nuclear/hazardous materials payload or space debris. Maybe 15 minutes earlier and they would have found the road blocked and area secured?

Is there a precedent for this? The USAF pilot Culberson allegedly said that he and others had been called out to the incident because of a ‘UFO.’ Not aliens, but ‘UFO.’ What if we’re talking about Cold War space debris? For many years the USAF assisted in Project Moon Dust which was tasked with recovering any space debris that was tracked hitting Earth. If it landed on friendly or neutral territory immediate efforts were made to gain access to it.

The space debris doesn't work due to the lack of impact damage on the road combined with described size of object. The surface is scorched and intact. We should rule it out.

What about an incident involving the transportation of nuclear/ hazardous materials? Road transport takes place at night. Maybe a transporter trailer caught fire and this endangered the payload. By the time the witnesses arrive, the transporter’s been towed away and the payload is being rapidly airlifted out of there? At the time Bergstrom AFB was a SAC facility and the NNSA are based at the PANTEX site in Amarillo, Tx. An unlikely scenario, but maybe not far from what occurred?

It’s problematic that the object sounds rocket-propelled and is described as hovering. There wasn't a helicopter observed above and it’s blowing out flames. So what if there actually was a helicopter above, but at a height great enough to ensure safety for crew and heli from the flames? If a CH-47 was at such an altitude, it might have gone unnoticed. The glaring brightness of the object and the flames could have prevented their eyes being able to see a higher altitude aircraft in the darkness.

In this manner, the hovering of the object could have been a misperception of the CH-47 pilot slowly lifting the weight of the object and preparing to move forward with it.

A crashed heli wouldn't need the blanket denial of USAF and Army involvement. Accidents happen and a downed heli isn't exactly a public disgrace, barely newsworthy. A nuclear/ hazardous payload (civil or military) would dictate swift action and obvious denials because people are always worrying about accidents. The hazardous materials could have been transported by heli or ground transporter and would justify the silence from Pentagon, USAF, Army and possibly NNSA.

What are the problems with this?

What type of material would need such an immediate and covert recovery that it would be recovered whilst still on fire? What would necessitate so many helis to respond? Wouldn’t the SOP be to secure the site and then recover the object when it was safe to do so? The duration of the initial sighting seems overly long for the lift and recovery of unidentified object.

The problem also remains of where the object would be recovered to? PANTEX is over 500 miles away and Bergstrom AFB over a 160 miles. Conceivably, it could have been moved to a desert area and secured for road transportation.

I was under the impression that the object was seen high in the sky after the "hovering over the road" incident. If that is the case, wouldn't that eliminate the "helicopter hung upside down in power lines" theory?

Originally posted by dpd11
I will say that by no means do I think my ideas are absolutely a done deal, 100% for sure happened. It would be nice to go back in time and stand on the side of the road a half hour before this happened. Part of me thinks you'd see something amazing. Part of me thinks you'd see nothing. But either way, anything now is just guessing.

First off all, I actually like your point of view from a whole 'nother direction. I like to take as many possibilities into consideration to "solve" the case.

My thinking was that the best chance for creating most of the conditions of what they thought they saw, would be a helicopter actually hung in the wires. I think this is a possibility with the H-6, as it is fairly light, and if you stood it on end, it would look somewhat like a pyramid.

www.americanspecialops.com...

Your theory really sounds interesting but I just can't imagine the object was a helicopter hung in wires... I just can't agree. Just imagine this kind of helicopter being hung in some wires: a) it certainly wouldn't "float" kind of stationary and b) apart from Ms. Landrum's religious views I do believe even she (and even more so Ms. Cash) could tell the difference between a mysterious object and a helicopter in some wires. The dimensions of the H-6 don't even fit the descriptions by the witnesses and it surely doesn't look "somewhat like a pyramid".

The tail could break off, and the exhaust port does come out the back. It's a turbine engine. So turn that so it's hanging with that down... and under certain conditions, you could have somewhat of a flame if the engine had not spun down... or the arc itself could be grounding and look like a flame. The chance of it getting hung that way? Obviously low. But not impossible. If they were flying slow enough, it could. The faster they go, the less likely. But when you are doing a mission with multiple sections, you have what's called a ladder that you follow. Your position in the ladder is specifically timed. So you control your speed based on how close you are to your pre-planed time along various waypoints, which would mean you may sometimes go quite slow. The one known accident involving power lines while training like this, around the same time... was an H-6. But they did not get hung up.

The flames came out at irregular intervals and I think a malfunctioning turbine engine would shoot out in a different angle than the one described by the witnesses (we only have their testimonals so that's the only way to "compare"). Another thing is the residue of the flame on the road. Do you really think a troubled helicopter or a damaged power line could cause such a (and literally ONE) residue of flame on the road? Just look in the pics in my initial post, although it's not an actual photo.

Of course there could have been a chance of a helicopter hung up in wires but I really just can't agree with that theory, there was something else involved, just my 2 cents...

By the way I have a friend in the States who is trying to acquire some actual photographs from the road before it was over-paved, I'll keep you updated

Also... Keep in mind that the cop claimed he saw helos, but not this alleged object with them. I think there's a possibility that the helicopters may not have been directly involved at all. Perhaps something happening with the power lines alone, that caused the injuries, and the helicopters just happen to be coming through and came over to investigate... perhaps thinking that another one of their flight or another aircraft HAD hit the lines. What would actually cause the malfunctioning lines or what the object they claim to have seen could be, I do not know. But the intent of the helicopters to me, one way or another... seems most likely to be the scenario I described in terms of the training route and flight package sections.

The cop didn't saw any object, but the other witness, Jerry Mc Donald, saw it:

A Dayton, Texas, oilfield worker Jerry McDonald saw a large UFO fly directly overhead while he was in his back garden. He thought it might be a blimp at first, but soon knew it was something more sinister. "It was kind of diamond shaped and had two twin torches that were shooting brilliant blue flames out the back", he said. He saw that it had two bright lights on it and a red light in the center.

You might be even correct about a training route and the flight package sections but the nature of these is questionable.

I have found info claiming that this could have been done off ships, just off shore during this time, for this training... but I have not found proof.

I also found some info about this claim - with one exception: the diamond shaped craft was on its way to a Carrier in the Gulf of Mexico

A few years ago, I was told that the two women (and Landrum’s seven-year-old grandson, who was also in the car that night) had actually seen a test of an atomic-powered aircraft that had run into trouble on a test flight. The pilots (there were two) had lost their video monitors, which was apparently the only way they had of seeing where they were going. The system was required to keep the occupants safe from the radiation generated by the craft. Of course, government agents can tell us anything they want–off the record. This also begs the question of just what was keeping the craft airborne when the rocket motor was shut off. Zamora reported the flame jetting out from the bottom of the object as bluish, with an orange border. This compares favorably with observations of burning rocket fuel, whether it be liquid hydrogen, kerosene, or hydrazine, all of which were operational in the mid 1960s. Regarding the Texas case, some atomic rockets work by pumping liquid hydrogen through a small nuclear reactor, and of course produces an exhaust plume. This process creates radionuclides, which emit ionizing radiation.

www.ufomystic.com...

Like I said, I think there could be a slight chance of some sort of NEST response, radioactive type of emergency. I just don't see how or why. It would be more believable to cover up something like that if it was the 60's or something. If this was something that happened near an area that has facilities or testing known for that kind of stuff, I'd have a lot easier time going along with the whole test thing, or nuclear emergency scenario. The Needles story goes along a lot better with that.

People keep bringing up the women's description of the events. What it comes down to is... how much credibility are you going to assign them. I don't think I'm really picking and choosing what to believe. I'm highly skeptical about the accuracy of everything they say they saw. I'm just trying to filter the bits that make the least sense, and have the least chance of being correct. Like I've said... Read that transcript word for word. I'm not trying to be insulting, but these women were not the most together people in the world. Right in the beginning they ask one of them to point on a map where this happened, and she couldn't even figure that out. Listen to how they talk and the things they say. Most questions were met with basically just more griping about their injuries. If they came off a lot more together and less scattered... I'd have a much easier time assigning credibility to the things they describe. They say this 'craft' went flying off with the helicopters. The cop said he saw the helicopters, but there was no craft with them. One time the women said that when they ran into the Air Guard guy, he said that he had been out flying that night. Another time they claimed he said that he hadn't. So which version of this stuff do you believe? The only other person that said they saw an unusual craft is that one third guy. I personally just don't believe him. He seemed disingenuous to me. I think he's a copy cat. Plus, didn't he say he saw this in the daytime? If the thing is flying around like that, where are other witnesses?

FYI... Helicopters and specifically the H-6 / MD500 type, has a beeping warning alarm. I'm not sure where the beeping came into the story, but I know that alarm can still be going off after a crash.

BTW... Ironically I had a Marine group working in my area the other night. HMM-268 REIN doing their urban training. First section that came through was three H-1 Cobra and two H-1N. Second flight was three H-46. Third was two CH-53. They hit an LZ up the valley and then came back out later as one group. They were only about 100' AGL. It's rare for them to do that here, so it was kind of a funny coincidence.

reply to post by dpd11
You have to admit your original notion of a heli crash and power lines doesn't stand up. The power lines aren't there and we have to keep discounting their testimony.

People keep bringing up the women's description of the events. What it comes down to is... how much credibility are you going to assign them. I don't think I'm really picking and choosing what to believe. I'm highly skeptical about the accuracy of everything they say they saw. I'm just trying to filter the bits that make the least sense, and have the least chance of being correct. Like I've said... Read that transcript word for word.

You might not think you're picking and choosing the best bits, but it seems like you discount the parts that are hard to explain. Think about it. All the core details they have claimed happened...really happened. The location was found to be where they said it was. The helicopters could be seen at night as they said they could. Their skins were burnt as they said it was. Despite the religio-babble they made pretty fine witnesses.

Mufon Journal Sep 1983 (by Schuessler)
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/68ca13a439bf.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5541686ebcce.jpg[/atsimg]

One time the women said that when they ran into the Air Guard guy, he said that he had been out flying that night. Another time they claimed he said that he hadn't. So which version of this stuff do you believe?

They were telling the truth again. Name and date was accurate and Schuessler spoke to the pilot. Read here...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8efa724c396a.jpg[/atsimg]

So it's possible the pilot was lying, but the witness testimony, once more, was solid. Like it or not, you need to give them a little more credit. There's a pilot called Willy Culberson in Austin, Texas. What are the chances it's the same guy? The age is right too...first man on the left. I can think of umpteen reasons that would motivate him to retract his story, under the circumstances.

The downside of this is his reference to 'UFO.' In transcripts and tapes of AFB incidents, 'UFO' means the same as it does to anyone else...'flying object.' 'In flight' makes it a tough incident to explain. Also it doesn't help the possibility of a heli going down because the USAF don't use that terminology for aircraft crashes or collisions. Maybe Ellington investigated a 'UFO' on radar and discovered a recovery operation involving the NSCA? It's tough!

In my opinion, the explanation that makes most sense *and* includes most of the testimony, is they caught the back-end of a recovery mission. The only type of recovery that would feature the amount of official denials would be hazardous materials (doesn't have to be nuclear). The 'flying away' is very hard to explain unless it was suspended from a heli at a much higher altitude, but it's a stretch maybe. Also, this type of secret is conceivably easy to keep, it isn't so big that crew had to go home and tell their wives and families about it.

Altogether, it's been a great thread and I think we could be as close to what happened as it's possible to get. A lot of your ideas have led to other ideas so thanks for that Thanks to Dalbeck too for posting it It isn't that often a thread comes along that tests the brain cells...once every few weeks.

reply to post by Kandinsky


What do you mean the power lines aren't there? I showed right where they are.

reply to post by dpd11
In the video where they return to the scene there aren't any power lines crossing the road. Nobody mentions power lines in the testimony or investigation. This suggests that power lines weren't there, or weren't involved.

In the snippets I just posted, you can see that Schuessler wasn't gullible or stupid. If there were power lines at the scene, it's not plausible that he wouldn't notice them or contact the local power station. If you think about it, a huge burnt patch of asphalt directly beneath power lines would be, at least, the first line of inquiry.

I honestly think we can rule out power lines.

reply to post by Kandinsky


Oh, 'we' can rule out the power lines? I like how you're acting like this is all wrapped up. lol I don't think it was a radioactive clean up, but you don't hear me getting all cocky and saying 'we' can rule it out. So two people pull up on a radioactive clean up that's just finishing, with apparently the most dangerous part of the device floating around over the road or whatever... And there's not a single person anywhere? No other vehicles, no road blocks... not so much as a cop car... and they just come driving up and nobody stops them? It would have been easy to block the road miles up. Obviously it would have taken time for the people to show up and figure out what they were going to do. This is doable to you, but a helicopter hitting a power line... there's just no way that could possibly happen? Why didn't anybody ever test the area of the road for radioactivity? That would have been the first thing their lawyer would have done. Obviously nobody found any. You'd have to do a lot more than just remove the surface of the pavement. There would be abnormal traces left no matter how much stuff you removed. How does the clean up scenario explain any of the claims any better than my ideas? At least mine has a chance. Where's the 'up in the air' part come in? The noise? The "flames"?

Are you talking about the Mysteries show? Dude, that was a reenactment. The two women were actors. There's a good chance that was just some road they used to shoot the show and wasn't even the same road. On the HC show, the guy who was the actual kid brought them to a spot that was just 2000' south of where the power lines are, which he claimed was the spot. They showed the garage type building and also a cross street sign in the shot when they were there. I don't think a fudge of 2000' is out of the question for somebody who had this happen in the middle of the night as a kid, 30 years ago. Have you even read the AF transcript? There's inconsistencies in what they said all over the place. How could you even know they took that UFO guy to the right place? She couldn't even point out where it happened on a map. I've had traumatic things happen to me. I sure as hell could point out where it happened on a map. Somebody says it's so hot in their car that they claim their hand left a print in the dash, but then the person decides to get out of the car and go stand in front of the thing? These are the people we're getting this rock solid testimony from?

I've worked on this for three years. There's absolutely no reason why my ideas can't be in the running just as much as anything else. Seems like the only problem people have with it, is that it's not outlandish enough. Everybody just want's this to be some big exotic thing that's all mysterious, with a big huge conspiracy behind it... and radioactive stuff and all this other crap. That's why everybody keeps insisting everything the women said is absolutely 100% fact. You just don't want it to be something boring, is all it is.