Within Court Dismissal
How Sworn Government Denials Changed the Case
Sworn statements from military and NASA officials denied federal ownership or control, shifting the burden back to the plaintiffs.
On this page
- Which agencies submitted declarations
- What the officials denied under oath
- Why the plaintiffs needed stronger counterevidence
Page outline Jump by section
Introduction
The federal government’s sworn declarations became the decisive evidence that undermined the plaintiffs’ ownership theory in the Cash–Landrum litigation. The witnesses alleged that the unidentified object and accompanying helicopters were part of a secret government operation, but under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) they had to do more than raise suspicion. They needed evidence that the craft belonged to, or was operated by, the United States. In response, multiple federal agencies submitted sworn declarations from senior officials stating that neither the reported object nor any matching aircraft existed within their inventories or under their operational control. Those declarations shifted the burden back to the plaintiffs, who were unable to produce documentary or witness evidence strong enough to create a genuine factual dispute. That evidentiary failure became a central reason the court dismissed the case.[The Exclusion Zone]theexclusionzone.comcash landrum 1980 ufo federal lawsuitThe Exclusion ZoneCash-Landrum 1980: The UFO Case That Went to CourtJuly 16, 2026…
Which agencies submitted declarations?
Rather than relying on a single denial, the Department of Justice assembled declarations from several agencies that could plausibly have been connected to the alleged aircraft. This strategy addressed the plaintiffs’ suggestion that the object might have belonged to an undisclosed military or government programme.
The declarations came from senior officials representing:
- NASA, through Robert W. Sommer.
- The United States Air Force, through Colonel William E. Krebs.
- The United States Navy, through Vice Admiral Robert F. Schoultz.
- The United States Army, through Richard L. Ballard, Acting Chief of the Aviation Systems Division within the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Research, Development and Acquisition.[Electronics and Books]electronicsandbooks.comElectronics and Books MUFON UFO JOURNALElectronics and Books MUFON UFO JOURNAL
Collectively, these agencies covered the principal branches that operated or developed military aircraft. By presenting declarations from organisations responsible for research, testing and operational aviation, the government sought to eliminate the possibility that the reported craft belonged to an overlooked federal inventory.
What the officials denied under oath
The declarations were carefully framed around ownership and control rather than the broader UFO question. None attempted to identify what the witnesses had actually seen. Instead, each addressed the legal issue required by the FTCA.
The officials stated, in substance, that:
- no aircraft matching the plaintiffs’ description was owned, operated or listed in the inventory of their respective service;
- no such craft was under the control of their organisations;
- they had no knowledge of an aircraft corresponding to the reported diamond-shaped object.[Electronics and Books]electronicsandbooks.comElectronics and Books MUFON UFO JOURNALElectronics and Books MUFON UFO JOURNAL
Colonel William E. Krebs, whose responsibilities included Air Force aircraft development and evaluation, declared that no aircraft fitting the description existed within the Air Force inventory. Richard L. Ballard made a comparable statement for Army aviation, explaining that after comparing the reported object with Army aircraft capable of flight, he knew of no such craft owned, operated or inventoried by the Army. Vice Admiral Schoultz similarly denied Navy ownership or operation of any aircraft matching the witnesses’ description. NASA’s declaration likewise rejected the suggestion that the object belonged to that agency.[Electronics and Books]electronicsandbooks.comElectronics and Books MUFON UFO JOURNALElectronics and Books MUFON UFO JOURNAL
An interesting detail often noted in later discussions is that NASA acknowledged possessing a tandem-rotor helicopter, but stated that it was located in California on the night of the incident rather than in Texas. That clarification addressed one possible explanation without conceding any involvement in the reported event.[Electronics and Books]electronicsandbooks.comElectronics and Books MUFON UFO JOURNALElectronics and Books MUFON UFO JOURNAL
Why these declarations carried legal weight
Affidavits and declarations submitted under oath are recognised forms of evidence in summary judgment proceedings. Once the government introduced sworn testimony denying ownership or operational control, the burden shifted to the plaintiffs to produce admissible evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact.
Importantly, the declarations did not prove that the incident never happened. Nor did they establish an alternative explanation for the reported object or the witnesses’ medical complaints. Their narrower legal function was to negate an essential element of the plaintiffs’ claim: that the United States was responsible for the alleged craft.
Because the declarations came from officials with responsibility for aircraft inventories and procurement, the court treated them as competent evidence on the question of federal ownership unless contradicted by equally persuasive evidence.[The Exclusion Zone]theexclusionzone.comcash landrum 1980 ufo federal lawsuitThe Exclusion ZoneCash-Landrum 1980: The UFO Case That Went to CourtJuly 16, 2026…
Why the plaintiffs needed stronger counterevidence
Once the government denied ownership under oath, eyewitness testimony alone became insufficient.
The plaintiffs’ evidence primarily consisted of:
- testimony describing a diamond-shaped object;
- observations of numerous military-style helicopters;
- medical evidence documenting subsequent illnesses;
- the inference that the helicopters indicated a military operation.
What they lacked was evidence directly linking the reported vehicles to the United States government. No flight logs, maintenance records, operational orders, radar records, procurement documents or testimony from military personnel identified the object as federal property. Likewise, no documentary evidence established that a federal agency had conducted an operation in the area involving such a craft.[The Exclusion Zone]theexclusionzone.comcash landrum 1980 ufo federal lawsuitThe Exclusion ZoneCash-Landrum 1980: The UFO Case That Went to CourtJuly 16, 2026…
This distinction was critical. The court was not deciding whether the witnesses sincerely believed what they had observed. Instead, it had to determine whether there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to conclude that the United States owned or controlled the alleged aircraft. The sworn declarations directly challenged that proposition, while the plaintiffs’ evidence remained largely circumstantial.
How the declarations changed the case
The government did not have to identify the mysterious object in order to prevail. Its objective was simply to demonstrate that the plaintiffs lacked evidence connecting the object to the federal government.
Once the declarations were filed, the dispute shifted away from the incident itself and towards evidentiary standards. The central question became whether the plaintiffs could rebut multiple sworn denials with evidence of comparable legal weight.
They could not.
As a result, the declarations helped establish that there was no genuine factual dispute over federal ownership or control. Without that necessary link, the plaintiffs’ FTCA claim could not proceed, regardless of the unresolved questions surrounding the unidentified object or the witnesses’ reported injuries. The district court therefore granted summary judgment in favour of the United States, and 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 CourtJuly 16, 2026…
Amazon book picks
Further Reading
Books and field guides related to How Sworn Government Denials Changed the Case. 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...
Trial Techniques and Trials
"Trial Techniques and Trials, Ninth Edition, conveys an understanding of the strategies and thought processes that lawyers use in the cou...
Point Made: How to Write Like the Nation's Top Advocates
With Point Made, legal writing expert Ross Guberman throws a life preserver to attorneys, who are under more pressure than ever to produc...
eBay marketplace picks
Marketplace Samples
Live-tested eBay searches with available results related to this page.
Selected fromUFO poster oneBay.co.uk.
Endnotes
1.
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 CourtJuly 16, 2026...
Published: July 16, 2026
2.
Source: electronicsandbooks.com
Title: Electronics and Books MUFON UFO JOURNAL
Link:https://electronicsandbooks.com/edt/manual/Magazine/M/MUFON%20UFO%20Journal/MUFON%20UFO%20Journal%20-%20October%201986.pdf
3.
Source: casemine.com
Title: Cash v
Link:https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914e815add7b0493491c392
Source snippet
United States | CIVIL NO.: WDQ-12-0563 | D. Md. | Judgment | Law | CaseMineDecember 10, 2012 — D. Federal Defendants' Motion to Dismiss o...
Published: December 10, 2012
4.
Source: supreme.justia.com
Link:https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/322/78/
Source snippet
Ballard | 322 U.S. 78 (1944) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court CenterApril 24, 1944 — UNITED STATES V. BALLARD, 322 U.S. 78 (1944) * * Annotati...
Published: April 24, 1944
Additional References
5.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiCgBn-Kbho
Source snippet
UFO Expert Reveals SHOCKING Truth About Cash-Landrum Incident America Mystery Network · 9 views...
6.
Source: foiaproject.org
Title: Case Detail | The FOIA Project
Link:https://foiaproject.org/case_detail/?case_id=35768&style=foia&title=on
Source snippet
(jca) (Entered: 07/03/2024) 2024-08-02 52 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 35 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed...
Published: August 2, 2024
7.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euP0SnHKfg8
Source snippet
[Cash-Landrum UFO Incident]({{ 'cash-landrum-ufo-incident/' | relative_url }}) - UFO, Helicopters, $20 Million Lawsuit...
8.
Source: fjc.gov
Title: Federal Judicial Center
Link:https://www.fjc.gov/content/381362/summary-judgment-government
Source snippet
Wray, No. 3:18-cv-110 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 9, 2023), D.E. 102, 660 F. Supp. 3d 555, aff'd, Opinion, No. 23-10284 (5th...
9.
Source: law.resource.org
Title: 874.F2d.1058.88 3274
Link:https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/F2/874/874.F2d.1058.88-3274.html
Source snippet
2634 Wilbert WILLIAMS, Personal Representative of the Estate of Ballard Williams, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CENTRAL GULF LINES, D...
10.
Source: youtube.com
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izTljlO2Css
Source snippet
The Lawsuit That Never Landed: The Cash-Landrum Encounter...
11.
Source: youtube.com
Title: Cash-Landrum UFO Incident
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNfOAtCgKI4
Source snippet
Rare interview with researcher John F. Schuessler on the 1980 Cash-Landrum UFO incident...
12.
Source: youtube.com
Title: The Lawsuit That Never Landed: The Cash-Landrum Encounter
Link:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeHaNpNlHQQ
Source snippet
The Cash-Landrum incident: traumatized & physically ill after terrifying UFO encounter, Dec 29, 1980...
13.
Source: docs.justia.com
Link:https://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/federal-claims/cofce/1%3A2015cv00764/31309/59
Source snippet
USA:: Justia Dockets & FilingsMarch 20, 2017 — Id. at ¶ 23. i. The Settlement Agreement The material facts of this case are not in dispu...
Published: March 20, 2017
14.
Source: law.justia.com
Link:https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/federal-claims/cofce/1%3A2015cv00764/31309/59/
Source snippet
USA, No. 1:2015cv00764 - Document 59 (Fed. Cl. 2017):: JustiaMarch 20, 2017 — To establish the existence of either an express or implied...
Published: March 20, 2017