top of page

Jack Sliwa- Technologist  03/03/20

 Cash-Landrum, Texas UAP-Serious Injuries Case         SPECULATION-Possibly Provable

    For those not familiar with this famous case I will first give several internet links for the reader to get the full details of the case.

1) wikipedia reference

2) reference

3) reference

    Two women and a boy driving in a car came upon a diamond-shaped blinding flame-spewing UAP hovering over a dark road in 1980 in the Piney-Woods area not far from Houston. The UAP apparently exposed the occupants, especially Betty Cash who got out of the car to watch the UAP more closely, to one or more injurious radiations, particle streams or microwaves. Their car was also heated to the point where the door handles burned Betty's hands.

    A confusing point of this UAP event was that the three witnesses in the car saw 23 or so helicopters trying to surround the UAP. The helicopters were a mix of Chinook two-rotor craft and several Huey? single-rotor craft. Three other independent witnesses also saw several helicopters in the area and one other also saw the UAP itself.

   The three passengers in the car sued the U.S. Government for $20 million dollars for their real injuries but high officials from the U.S. Military denied that the helicopters were ours and also denied knowledge of the UAP event itself. The car passengers thereby inevitably lost the lawsuit.

   Ever since I learned of this case it hasn't made sense to me that any governmental agency or private company would simultaneously utilize 23 helicopters in close quarters as the danger of having them colliding with each other (if not with the UAP) would seem to be quite high. This is especially true of the rather large and less docile but reliable Chinooks.

   However there is one exception that would require such dense helicopter traffic. That would be to map the electromagnetic (EM) field(s) around the UAP to understand the UAP's propulsion means-something of immense strategic and monetary value. To do that effectively one would ideally like to completely surround the UAP. In 1980 the fleet of helicopters may have had three dimensional positioning capability such that they could record their (and the UAPs) space/time positions simultaneous with recording the desired UAP emissions. This would accurately allow for a 3D plot of the UAP's EM field(s) to be plotted over a period of time-even if it was calculated after the incident. I am not saying that the 3D positioners nor the EM-sensing instruments were standard equipment for the helicopters.However they could certainly be outsourced and linked for coordination and a time reference.

  One must wonder how so many helicopters and pilots and likely sensor technicians were prepared for the job especially in terms of the exact time and the location of the event. It is hard to see how this was possible without advance expectation of the UAP's visit.

   It seems to me that a 3-letter government agency, or private contractor working for such, tried to gather some immensely valuable data. I don't find this the least bit surprising. It is very sad that innocent people got hurt in the process and justice was avoided.

  I don't think it impossible that the helicopter fleet (with some additional help?) attracted, on short notice, the UAP. This would fully explain the fortuitous scheduling. Finally, the bigger Chinooks may have carried larger sensor suites and they have large doors for sensors to stare at the UAP.

bottom of page