Within Claims Process
Why the Helicopters Did Not Prove Government Control
Descriptions of military-type helicopters suggested official involvement but did not identify a unit, crew, aircraft program or federal employee.
On this page
- What the claim forms said about the helicopters
- What identification evidence was missing
- Why appearance alone could not establish liability
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The reported presence of numerous military-style helicopters was the strongest feature of the Cash–Landrum claim pointing towards possible government involvement. However, it was also the weakest element from a legal standpoint. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA), it was not enough for the witnesses to believe they had seen military aircraft. They had to show that the helicopters, the alleged object, or both were operated by identifiable federal personnel acting within the scope of government employment. That crucial evidential link was never established. As a result, the helicopters could support the witnesses’ narrative that something extraordinary occurred, but they could not by themselves establish legal responsibility for the United States.[Wikipedia]WikipediaCash–Landrum incidentCash–Landrum incident
What the claim forms said about the helicopters
When Betty Cash and Vickie Landrum submitted administrative claims after their interview at Bergstrom Air Force Base, they alleged that military helicopters accompanied or controlled the unidentified object and that the resulting encounter caused serious physical injuries. Their later federal complaint similarly alleged that the United States owned or operated CH-47 Chinook helicopters and an experimental aerial vehicle connected with the incident. Those allegations were central because the FTCA only waives sovereign immunity for injuries caused by federal employees acting within the scope of their duties.[Scribd]scribd.comFederal Tort Claims Act CaseFederal Tort Claims Act Case Summary | PDF | Lawsuit | Diseases And Disorders…
The witnesses consistently maintained that they saw a large formation of tandem-rotor helicopters, with Betty Cash stating that some bore “United States Air Force” markings. Their reasoning was straightforward: if the helicopters were military, then the government must have known about the object or even been escorting it. That inference became the foundation of both the administrative claims and the subsequent lawsuit.[Wikipedia]WikipediaCash–Landrum incidentCash–Landrum incident
The legal problem was that the claim depended on an assumption rather than independently verifiable identification. The witnesses did not know which military branch operated the helicopters, where they came from, what unit they belonged to, or who the crews were.
What identification evidence was missing
The missing evidence was not a minor technicality but the core issue that prevented attribution.
The administrative record and later litigation lacked evidence identifying:
- a specific military unit operating in the area;
- individual pilots or flight crews;
- flight plans, mission orders or operational logs;
- radar records placing the helicopters at the reported location;
- maintenance or dispatch records matching the alleged formation;
- testimony from military personnel confirming participation.
Investigators contacted multiple military organisations because the reported helicopters resembled Chinooks, which were operated by several branches of the US military. Despite those enquiries, no service identified aircraft matching the witnesses’ account. The Army Inspector General’s investigation, led by Lieutenant Colonel George Sarran, concluded that no evidence showed the helicopters belonged to the US Armed Forces, even while describing the principal witnesses as credible people who appeared sincere.[Wikipedia]WikipediaCash–Landrum incidentCash–Landrum incident
This distinction is important. Credibility of a witness is not equivalent to proof of government ownership or operation. Courts require evidence connecting the alleged conduct to a legally responsible defendant.
Why appearance alone could not establish liability
The witnesses argued from appearance: the helicopters looked military and therefore must have been operated by the United States.
The court required something more.
Military-style aircraft are not self-authenticating evidence of government control. Similar helicopters may be operated by different branches, contractors, allied forces or other authorised operators, and visual observations alone do not establish ownership or command. Even accepting that the witnesses honestly believed they saw military helicopters, that observation did not identify the legal actor responsible for the alleged injuries.[The Exclusion Zone]theexclusionzone.comcash landrum 1980 ufo federal lawsuitThe Exclusion ZoneCash-Landrum 1980: The UFO Case That Went to Court…
This evidential gap also affected the unidentified object itself. The plaintiffs could not identify any government programme, agency or employee operating the alleged craft. Consequently, even if the helicopters had been present, there remained no direct proof that they were escorting, controlling or connected with the object in a manner that created federal liability.
Why the attribution problem mattered under the Federal Tort Claims Act
The FTCA permits suits against the United States only when injuries are attributable to negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees acting within the scope of their employment. It does not authorise recovery merely because an incident appears to involve government equipment.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs had to prove two linked propositions:
- that the helicopters or object belonged to the United States; and
- that identifiable government personnel were responsible for the conduct that allegedly caused the injuries.
The administrative process could receive and evaluate their claim, but it could not supply the missing factual proof. Once the case reached federal court, the absence of evidence identifying a responsible federal agency or employee became decisive.[The Exclusion Zone]theexclusionzone.comcash landrum 1980 ufo federal lawsuitThe Exclusion ZoneCash-Landrum 1980: The UFO Case That Went to Court…
How the courts treated the helicopter evidence
During the litigation, government agencies submitted testimony and records denying knowledge of any operation matching the witnesses’ description. Discovery did not produce documents showing a military mission involving a large formation of helicopters in the relevant area on the night in question.[The Exclusion Zone]theexclusionzone.comcash landrum 1980 ufo federal lawsuitThe Exclusion ZoneCash-Landrum 1980: The UFO Case That Went to Court…
The courts therefore distinguished between two separate questions:
- Whether the witnesses genuinely believed they had seen military helicopters.
- Whether there was admissible evidence proving those helicopters were operated by the United States.
Only the second question determined liability.
Because the plaintiffs could not produce evidence identifying a federal operator, the district court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact establishing government ownership, operation or control of either the helicopters or the reported object. The dismissal was later affirmed on appeal.[The Exclusion Zone]theexclusionzone.comcash landrum 1980 ufo federal lawsuitThe Exclusion ZoneCash-Landrum 1980: The UFO Case That Went to Court…
The lasting significance of the attribution problem
The helicopter reports remain one of the most discussed aspects of the Cash–Landrum incident because, if independently verified, they would strongly suggest official involvement. Yet the same feature illustrates the difference between a persuasive narrative and legally sufficient proof.
For the administrative claims and the subsequent lawsuit, the helicopters were not enough simply because they appeared military. Without evidence identifying a specific unit, aircraft, crew or federal employee, the sightings could not bridge the crucial gap between an extraordinary event and legal responsibility by the United States. That attribution problem—not the mere existence of helicopter reports—ultimately prevented the military aircraft allegations from establishing government liability.
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to Why the Helicopters Did Not Prove Government Control. Use these as the next step if you want deeper reading beyond the article.
Evidence
Prompted by mounting changes and mounting confusion in constitutional evidence law and by the new restyling of the Federal Rules of Evide...
Acing Evidence
Acing Evidence offers a succinct, clear, and user-friendly review of federal evidence law. Providing many helpful examples and employing...
Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges
In their professional lives, courtroom lawyers must do these two things well: speak persuasively and write persuasively. In this notewort...
Chickenhawk
Robert Mason's bestselling account of his service as a chopper pilot in Vietnam--a no-holds-barred autobiography that reveals the war's s...
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected frommilitary helicopter poster oneBay.co.uk.
Endnotes
1.
Source: Wikipedia
Title: Cash–Landrum incident
Link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash%E2%80%93Landrum_incident
2.
Source: scribd.com
Title: Federal Tort Claims Act Case
Link:https://www.scribd.com/document/908709170/126065-r
Source snippet
Federal Tort Claims Act Case Summary | PDF | Lawsuit | Diseases And Disorders...
3.
Source: scribd.com
Title: Orlando Helicopter Airways v United States 75 F 3d 622 11th Cir 1996
Link:https://www.scribd.com/document/319381893/Orlando-Helicopter-Airways-v-United-States-75-F-3d-622-11th-Cir-1996
4.
Source: theexclusionzone.com
Title: cash landrum 1980 ufo federal lawsuit
Link:https://www.theexclusionzone.com/cash-landrum-1980-ufo-federal-lawsuit/
Source snippet
The Exclusion ZoneCash-Landrum 1980: The UFO Case That Went to Court...
Additional References
5.
Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/420/1049/539049/
Source snippet
Du Pont De Nemours and Company, Inc.; et al., Intervenors, v. United States of America, Defendant-appellee.timm Adams; et al., Plaintiffs...
6.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euP0SnHKfg8
Source snippet
The Cash-Landrum incident: traumatized & physically ill after terrifying UFO encounter, Dec 29, 1980...
7.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiCgBn-Kbho
Source snippet
Betty Cash, Vickie and [Colby Landrum]({{ 'colby-landrum/' | relative_url }}) on witnessing a fiery diamond-shaped UFO, December 29, 1980...
Published: December 29, 1980
8.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Betty Cash, Vickie and Colby Landrum on witnessing a fiery diamond-shaped UFO,
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJdhk3_DurE
Source snippet
[Cash-Landrum UFO Incident]({{ 'cash-landrum-ufo-incident/' | relative_url }}) - The Unexplained [Episode 4]...
Published: December 29, 1980
9.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Why Did the Government Target These UFO Witnesses?
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKlqpbMlJIM
Source snippet
Cash Landrum helicopters military federal lawsuit Why Did the Government Target These UFO Witnesses?...
10.
Source: docs.justia.com
Link:https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca4/10-2355/403801417
Source snippet
US:: Justia Dockets & FilingsMarch 12, 2012 — MICHAEL HOLBROOK V. US FILING PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2...
Published: March 12, 2012
11.
Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca6/14-3591/14-3591-2016-02-12.html
Source snippet
Anderson, No. 14-3591 (6th Cir. 2016):: JustiaFebruary 12, 2016 — In sum, a case can be made that Coffenberger’s testimony would have be...
Published: February 12, 2016
12.
Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/cafc/17-1082/17-1082-2018-01-23.html
Source snippet
United States, No. 17-1082 (Fed. Cir. 2018):: JustiaJanuary 23, 2018 — AGUSTAWESTLAND NORTH AMERICA V. UNITED STATES, NO. 17-1082 (FED...
Published: January 23, 2018
13.
Source: docs.justia.com
Link:https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/federal-claims/cofce/1%3A2014cv00877/30106/129
Source snippet
v. USA:: Justia Dockets & FilingsAugust 24, 2016 — AGUSTAWESTLAND NORTH AMERICA, INC. V. USA FILING 129 REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION and...
Published: August 24, 2016
14.
Source: caselaw.findlaw.com
Link:https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-6th-circuit/1726010.html
Source snippet
ANDERSON (2016) | FindLawFebruary 12, 2016 — Landrum may have a claim for deficient performance but he cannot establish prejudice arising...
Published: February 12, 2016