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

Originally posted by Kandinsky

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.

I would say that it is the same person, another interesting tidbit....

STAR (Shock Trauma Air Rescue) Flight of Austin, Texas, met the initial FAA requirements for its NVG program and had AEC do the ground and flight training. Subsequently, its director of aviation, Willy Culberson, a former Army pilot with previous goggle experience , became NVG-instructor qualified and was checked out by the FAA. This allowed AEC to do the initial ground and flight training and Culberson to sign off his pilots' logbooks with their final check flights. Once the training was completed, the FAA flew a check ride with each pilot and now conducts annual check rides to ensure proficiency. Once STAR pulls in more pilots, Culberson will have one of his flyers become approved by the FAA to give NVG check rides. Said Culberson, �One of the drawbacks we are facing is the lack of NVG instructors with the FAA for annual evaluations.�

The Eyes of the Night

I would point out that the involvement of the 136th Transportation Unit implies the mundane.

Has anyone considered contacting Mr.Culberson via email, tell him who you are and why your interested and politely asking if there is anything he might be able to add or in the least if he could put you in touch with the resident historian of the 136th?

Originally posted by Kandinsky

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.

What a great idea, why don't we use today's possibilities to find and contact someone. I threw his name in google and got some other interesting links:

EUROCOPTER GOLDEN HOUR AWARD: Austin-Travis County STAR Flight; Pilots and Crews, Austin, Texas STAR Flight is a public safety helicopter program operated by a unique partnership between Travis County and the City of Austin, Texas. As part of the Austin-Travis County EMS System, STAR Flight provides emergency helicopter services to a 19-county area, centered around Austin. Founded in 1985 as an EMS service for Travis County and the greater central Texas region, the program has evolved over the years to provide a broad-based set of services, which includes helicopter EMS and transportation, search and rescue, law enforcement, and aerial fire fighting. Those capabilities were brought to bear in November of 2001, when the Austin area experienced its worst flooding on record. Rains during the November storm fell at the rate of five inches per hour, and winds gusted up to 60 knots. The resulting flood left hundreds not only in life-threatening situations, but in areas inaccessible to ground rescue crews. Over the course of the flood, the pilots, nurses, paramedics and mechanics of STAR Flight 1 and STAR Flight 2 performed 24 short-haul rescues. Austin residents concede that without the effort and dedication of STAR Flight's rescue professionals, 24 Texans might have lost their lives that night. STAR Flight's tireless commitment to the central Texas community, as well as their dedication to providing informed, experienced and state-of-the-art air rescue services, embodies the standard of courage and professionalism that HAI's Eurocopter Golden Hour Award seeks to reward. HAI is proud to recognize the staff and crews of STAR Flight for their selfless service and invaluable contributions to the helicopter industry.

www.rotor.com...

And his private profile on a friends search engine: www.classmates.com...

He in fact is one of the guys in the know. Maybe we can contact him and join this board/ thread (highly unlikely, I know, but who knows)?

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.

Definitely I am so glad we all came to different conclusions and had a nice topic to discuss about, it really means the world to me

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Hehe man you really beat me to it Nice find!!! Wow, now it's really getting deep!!! Why not contacting him? But I really fear he's afraid to tell (for obvious reasons).

I think we trust the witness testimony because...well...they were the ones who were there. We weren't, so we only have their word to go on.

Also, they said they saw the object come over the tops of the trees, so that means they didn't come upon a crash or spill of some type that had already happened.

You have a point that top secret/experimental craft would be tested on a secure range, but eventually the craft will be flown off-range. It seems very probable that the craft experienced some kind of malfunction (happens all the time) and, expecting a crash and the need for a quick clean up/cover up/retrieval, the fleet of copters were called in to handle what seemed to be an impending disaster.

reply to post by dpd11

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.

I haven't said it was a radiation leak, I suggested a hazardous materials accident. Why not have a moment and go and read the actual posts? I also said there are lots of problems with my idea and then listed them under an underlined subheading. I asked for input. Maybe you missed all that? Maybe you missed the part where I suggested it was the back end of an operation and the witnesses caught the final moments? What about the part were I questioned why the area wasn't made secure? Seriously, the next time you post something in here don't let it be more proof that you aren't listening.

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"?

Why are you obsessed with this road surface? When I mentioned it (do you read?!), it was to show a precedent in clearing up nuclear accidents after you were insisting it never happened. I left a link.

Once more, do you read? Do you understand English? I clearly described a scenario that would explain the object being airborne and then showed how it was problematic and not a perfect solution. You missed it huh?

Have you even read the AF transcript?

Of course I bloody have. Have you read the thread? *If* it was power lines, the witneses don't see them. They took Schuessler to the site (yes he actually went there) and he'd probably notice a power line directly above the scorched asphalt. Like I said, it would be a first line of inquiry.

When I said 'we' would have to leave the lines out, it was in the spirit of a few guys trying to work something out together. I thought we had got to the point where we were tossing ideas about.

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.

Here we go again! More of the mischaracterising people. How many outlandish ideas are there? Like it or not, three people got injured and nobody took responsibility...that's a conspiracy. It isn't JFK, but it's a conspiracy. Your ideas are in the running and if you read the damn thread you'd have seen me saying they are great ideas and the best new theory in years.

The 'only problem' with it is having to move the location, ignore the witnesses, pretend that the investigators at the time were stupid. We'd have to imagine an airborne object hitting the lines at speed and not causing damage to grid, lines or pylons. Could the flaming heli/object that was tangled and hanging from the lines be recovered by helis without men on the ground? Nope.

The explanation I suggested included the best features of your ideas and tried to synthesise them into something that allowed witness testimony (not 100% accurate - nobody says it was), investigations and left out power lines. It also left a reason for the secrecy. Military aviation accidents are reported in the news and don't require a cover-up. The mission details aren't reported, just the incident.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot
We could contact him. The thing is, if those involved have remained silent for these 30 years, I don't see him breaking ranks. He's got a good business going on. I don't know if Colby Landrum, or family would seek some form of secondary investigation if confirmation was made that the USAF were there when the official findings said they weren't...

I sure would like a beer with him and find out for myself what happened...

reply to post by Kandinsky


After a cursory glance at the scraps returned by a quick google search, my impression is that Mr.Culberson seems to be highly regarded by the local community and he may be apprehensive to broach the subject if for no other reason fear of misrepresentation by the more...um.. enthusiastic members of the UFO community.

I would offer that the tone of this thread is grounded and rational compared to many and my perception is that both Dalbeck, dpd11 and yourself seem to all have a pleasant demeanor and detailed case knowledge.

There are quite a few people who I would discourage from entertaining the possibility of intruding into someones personal life with the goal of providing research for an ATS thread however, speaking for myself, I would be comfortable with any one of the three of you making unsolicited contact for an off the record chat of something 30 years in the past.

Granted, I am not a fairly high profile rotary wing pilot nor am I a potential witness to a fairly high profile UFO case much less a combination of the two and there is a good probability that Mr.Culberson might feel differently.

I agree that the ideal opportunity would be to buy the man a cold beer and listen intently.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot
First off, thanks for the kind words.

It's unlikely that he'd be responsive for the reasons you cite and the legal repercussions would be a major concern. I guess that no matter what theory we come up with and no matter how well it fits the circumstances, no confirmation will be forthcoming.

I'm pretty happy that Dal posted the thread and that DPD has generated so many new ideas about the incident.

If you're interested, I've uploaded the MUFON Journal that features the Schuessler report. It's right here.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
If you're interested, I've uploaded the MUFON Journal that features the Schuessler report. It's right here.

Hi Kandinsky,

You may already know, but since you'd uploaded an issue of MUFON's Journal I thought I'd quickly mention that most of the MUFON Journals are already online as a result of cooperation between MUFON and the Blackvault website. See:

HERE

More directly on topic: coincidentally, on another forum in the last few days someone posted indicating that they were a witness to an event (?the same event?) in 1980 involving a craft surrounded by helicopters. Unfortunately, that person has not visited that website since posting his message a few days ago. Obviously, I've requested more details...

All the best,

Isaac

reply to post by IsaacKoi
You might want to look at that issue. It mentions a MUFON-CES report (No 10) that details UFO sightings by astronomers. I was going to u2u about it. I checked if it was available on-line and couldn't find it, although it was only a cursory search.

If you haven't already read it, it could be a reference for the upcoming thread.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by IsaacKoi

 

You might want to look at that issue. It mentions a MUFON-CES report (No 10) that details UFO sightings by astronomers.

Thanks. I'll get hold of a copy of that.

Also, I'll post here if I hear more from the person claiming to have been a witness to the Cash-Landrum incident (or, pending further details, at least a remarkably similar incident in the same year).

All the best,

Isaac

reply to post by Kandinsky


I read every word of your posts. Did you read mine? Because I said like, three times, there are power lines right there... Posted an air photo showing right where they are... Said I looked at an air photo of the time and they were there... Said that the kid/man took the HC show people right to a spot on the actual road, that showed a cross street sign, so it could be found on a map... and the power lines are maybe less than 1/2 a mile from that same spot. And then after all that you come back and say "there aren't any power lines crossing the road" and "I honestly think we can rule out power lines."

Bottom line... They said they saw something as big as a water tower with flames shooting out the bottom. Seems like this would be a pretty easy thing to spot in the sky. This wasn't that late at night. But not a single other person in the whole state said they saw this, including the cop that saw the copters. Other than two people's claims... there is no evidence of any ship whatsoever. Other than their claims... There is no evidence of a cleanup. Yet... They appeared to be injured by something that gave them skin burns and burns on their eyes. So what did that? The only solid thing that could for sure do that on that road... Bright light, burns on the skin and eyes, and heat... is from that power line. A power line that the kid/man claims is right near the spot where it happened. Did it actually do it? I cannot 100% prove that. But to say that is ruled out is ridiculous. If you don't want me to lose my patience, then don't talk to me like I'm some dingy house wife on "The Price is Right", that just guessed the wrong price for a refrigerator.

If somebody wants to try and email that guy, I would highly recommend that you state right up front that you believe it was something mundane, or that it was a mistake... and make it very clear you're not looking for aliens or some other stuff. Because the guy is never going to answer if you do that. You're going to have to be very delicate. I can email him if nobody else wants to, but I give a 1 in 10 chance of him wanting to talk about it. Assuming it's the same guy. I don't fly anymore, but I use to. Maybe I could ask him something about that first.

reply to post by dpd11
Okay. So we're on an even footing and we've read each other's posts.

You say the power lines are a half mile away from the spot. Fair enough, let's look into it again.

Bottom line... They said they saw something as big as a water tower with flames shooting out the bottom. Seems like this would be a pretty easy thing to spot in the sky. This wasn't that late at night. But not a single other person in the whole state said they saw this, including the cop that saw the copters. Other than two people's claims... there is no evidence of any ship whatsoever. Other than their claims...

Most of their claims have been supported by injuries, independent witnesses, investigators, material evidence at the location and the pilot. On that basis, it seems unreasonable to characterise them as unreliable witnesses. The dimensions of the object could be mistaken. I agree with that possibility.

There is no evidence of a cleanup. Yet... They appeared to be injured by something that gave them skin burns and burns on their eyes. So what did that? The only solid thing that could for sure do that on that road... Bright light, burns on the skin and eyes, and heat... is from that power line.

Arc lighting doesn't cause physical effects like those reported by the witnesses and seen in the photos. You assume that none of the researchers, investigators or medical staff could conceive of this possibility or recognise the symptoms.

A power line that the kid/man claims is right near the spot where it happened. Did it actually do it? I cannot 100% prove that. But to say that is ruled out is ridiculous. If you don't want me to lose my patience, then don't talk to me like I'm some dingy house wife on "The Price is Right", that just guessed the wrong price for a refrigerator.

I've given respect to your ideas and criticised you when you've been dismissive of members in this thread. I've repeatedly written that your ideas are new and original. Right now, I couldn't care less about your patience.

If somebody wants to try and email that guy, I would highly recommend that you state right up front that you believe it was something mundane, or that it was a mistake... and make it very clear you're not looking for aliens or some other stuff.

Here we go again with the aliens. You don't get it that you are the only guy in the thread banging on about aliens? It's back to that thing about seeing what you want to see and not reading the posts.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


I'm looking forward to hearing more! Hopefully it's really another witness of the same event

Originally posted by dpd11
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

Other than two people's claims... there is no evidence of any ship whatsoever. Other than their claims... There is no evidence of a cleanup. Yet... They appeared to be injured by something that gave them skin burns and burns on their eyes. So what did that?

Not quite correct... Just read my initial post/ section "III. Physical evidence, witnesses and investigations". There's another witness to the craft, Jerry McDonald.

And Oilfield laborer Jerry McDonald was in his back garden in Dayton when he witnessed a large UFO flying over his head. At first he thought it was the goodyear airship, but quickly realized it was something else. "It was kind of diamond shaped and had two twin torches that were shooting brilliant blue flames out the back", he said. As it passed about 45 meters above him he saw that it had two bright lights on it and a red light in the center.

I think Mr. McDonald, as an Oilfield laborer, had a reputation to lose but still decided to talk what he saw.

Originally posted by Dalbeck
reply to post by IsaacKoi

 

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

Thanks Dalbeck.

That link was helpful since those pages include the identity of the relevant court and the case number. I know that in the USA there is a fairly good system (from memory, I think it is called the "PACER" system - yes, see here) for obtaining images of documents relating to cases, but I doubt it extends back this far. I've previously signed up to that system so I'll see what I can find in the next few days.

All the best,

Isaac

Originally posted by Kandinsky
I've given respect to your ideas and criticised you when you've been dismissive of members in this thread. I've repeatedly written that your ideas are new and original. Right now, I couldn't care less about your patience

Yeah, that's obvious. So your idea of respect is making a dismissive, condescending comment with complete finality like "WE can rule out power lines", like you're in charge here or something?

It's funny... In the beginning, I was the one that first just politely put up my ideas and info I have learned through the effort I've made. Next thing I know, I'm getting somebody calling me every name they can think of. Which I can certainly handle. But then... Numerous people replying to that post, and basically saying they agree with him... And then later, generally being treated like some kind of retarded pariah... having my ideas that were explained in great detail in multiple paragraphs, often dismissed with nothing more than a couple sentences and the most minimal effort... All because I dared to infer that power lines could burn people... Which is just way too boring and not nearly exotic enough for everybody. Yet, somehow I'm the bad guy.

I'm tired of arguing about it... Tell you what, I'll just make it easy on everybody... The power line idea is completely retarded. There's obviously no possible way people could ever get burns or damaged vision from a power line in the pitch dark, and get confused about what they saw. The testimony from the two women is rock solid, perfectly accurate, and obviously doesn't have a single flaw anywhere. Every word they said can be absolutely 100% taken as fact.

Carry on.

reply to post by dpd11
You turn it on like my ex-missus; I say compliment and she heard insult. How many times do I need to say your ideas are good before you'll believe it? No, not condescending, genuinely good ideas and, once more, original and fresh.

The power lines can burn people, but they don't cause diarrhoea and vomiting. Cash was in hospital for two weeks through sickness. If it was a heli, would the aviation fuel smell of 'lighter fluid' and cause that level of physical illness? These are points that go against the power lines idea. Not against you as a person...just the idea.

I'd like your thoughts on this specifically. In other words your help and your opinion.

I keep suggesting they saw the back-end of a recovery mission (final moments) and I asked about whether it was possible if a CH-47 could be at such an altitude as to be unseen by witnesses and to protect heli and crew from the burning cargo? Is that possible? What are your thoughts on this as they would apply to your idea of a power line crash as much as to mine?

I ask because the earliest part of their account describes the object being horizontal and then changing to the vertical. To me, this could be the object in question being on the ground and being hoisted up.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Thanks Isaac for your efforts and contribution to this thread, I'm lloking forward to your researches!

Originally posted by Dalbeck
Thanks Isaac for your efforts and contribution to this thread, I'm lloking forward to your researches!

Hi Dalbeck,

I've now done a few searches on the PACER system used to store and share court documentation in the USA.

Unfortunately it seems that the relevant court in Texas has not put the Cash/Landrum litigation documents online yet. (The system is more comprehensive for more recent cases).

I may send the Court an email checking that I haven't missed something.

Incidentally, a few searches on Google indicate that Quest Publications published some or all of the Cash/Landrum litigation documents. I have a small pile somewhere of booklets published by Quest Publications, do I'll have a look to see if I already have the relevant booklet (but I don't recall that one being in the bunch I've bought...). I don't know if that publication was more complete than the few documents at the link you kindly provided, i.e.:
www.cufon.org...

All the best,

Isaac