The Cash-Landrum File: Civil Action No. H84 348

UK historical researcher Isaac Koi posted on ATS:

"I am now pleased to be able to share a further collection of material – about 30 booklets of documents produced by Quest Publications (some of which are over 100 pages long). ...thanks to Russel Callaghan and others in the Birdsall family, the under-appreciated “Archives For the Unexplained” ("AFU") in Sweden has now scanned nearly 30 of the collections of documents published by Quest Publications."

Of particular interest, is 101-Cash_Landrum_File-Civil_Action, a collection of legal documents relating to the Cash-Landrum UFO encounter. Below is a link to the ATS article:
101-Cash_Landrum_File-Civil_Action

Direct link to the booklet:
The Cash-Landrum File: Civil Action No. H84 348

I do not believe a complete collection of legal files exists, but between this, the CUFON collection and John Schuessler's book, almost everything has been disclosed.


Many thanks to Isaac Koi for preserving this, and many other UFO historical records.

The $20 Million Cash-Landrum UFO Story

The Cash-Landrum UFO case publicity made a splash in 1981, but had a second wave starting in 1983 after the filing of the lawsuit against the US Government for 20 million dollars in damages. The suit stuck to the details of original incident, avoiding later embellishments such as the legend of the scorched road being removed and replaced by men in unmarked trucks.

Despite the resolve of Betty Cash and Vickie Landrum, there was not sufficient evidence to take the case to trial, and as attorney Peter Gersten later revealed, it was a bluff: 

“The lawsuit was brought in hope that behind the scenes the government would say, `Let’s keep this quiet, we’ll take care of the medical expenses and make sure nothing else happens’." 

Houston Chronicle, Texas Magazine, Page 8, 2 Star Edition, 11/17/1996

 See this earlier article for more on the lawsuit: Cash-Landrum UFO Case: Legal Rumors

Tabloid News

The article below on the Cash-Landrum lawsuit was sent to me by Martin Kottmeyer from his clippings of UFO stories from the 1984 period. It's typical of the coverage at the time and likely came from the tabloid National Examiner. It’s a good summary of the story, but has a few notable variations from canon. Quotations in newspapers, especially tabloids can’t be trusted for fidelity, but it’s interesting that Vickie refers to helicopter searchlights, something absent from earlier accounts. Betty Cash had breast cancer, but said, “The doctors told me radiation definitely caused my cancer.” The tests run during her original hospitalization were negative for radiation exposure.

The other point of interest is Vickie’s reference to the “Pentagon man,” which eventually evolved into a veiled death threat: “He questioned me and I answered him, and then he told me that people had died for less than what I was trying to do.” Vickie Landrum from her appearence on “Sightings” TV episode, segment: “Physical Effects,” July 31, 1992.

The Cash-Landrum case occurred at the same time lore surrounding Roswell was being developed, and distrust of the Government and the belief in a “Cosmic Watergate” UFO cover-up was central to them both. Without a villain to explain the lack of evidence, about all that is left are stories.

Also pictured, UFO sketch by Betty Cash.
Click here for larger version.

The Flying Saucer: A Manufactured Concept by Herbert Hackett

The Flying Saucer

A Manufactured Concept

Herbert Hackett

Ohio Wesleyan University 

(From Sociology and Social Research, May- June, 1948.)

It is interesting to examine the making of public opinion in the matter of the "flying saucer." Public opinion is, of course, not a thing, but the mixture of responses of a number of people to similar or related stimuli. This mixture takes form as a stereotyped, verbalized concept which is, for all practical purposes, a thing and thus used as the basis for action.1 The flying saucer is an excellent subject in that it is almost wholly a manufactured concept, lasting a short period of time and, so, easy to study.  It is, in addition, not too closely tied to the emotional colorations of prejudice and habit which would distort a similar study of opinion on Russia, vivisection, or the home. 

It was of little immediate interest when a pilot in Idaho “saw” a flying saucer. The wire services carried the story, tongue in cheek, and, having little news in the area, kept it alive from day to day with recapitulations of the original. Early the stereotyped concept was suggested; the term “flying saucer” was simple, so homely that everyone could visualize it. It was at once given authority by its appearance in the press. "There must be something to it. I read it in the paper.”2 

Later, we will see, the concept was strengthened by repetition, repetition by variations, “scientific" evidence and speculation, photography, analogy, wit, denial, apology. Newspapers, through juxtaposition, headlining, and suggestion, soon related it to other concepts, to well-established stereotypes and slogans — “the greatest air force in the world" and universal military training to protect "the American way of life" from "the menace of red- Fascism." Other events were soon reported which fitted the general pattern of the first story of early June 1947. A pilot "saw" one of the "what'sits" at 10,000 feet, going at 1,200 mph. When next “seen" the saucers had already acquired common, if vague, attributes of shape, size, speed, and altitude, and in a day or two had added "a blue, fiery tail," or "two tails like a comet." They came out of the West. 

So far there had been only a groping toward a plausible concept, with a gradual elimination of less easily grasped characteristics such as "disintegration," lateral and/or vertical revolution, and a "blister" for the pilot. Seemingly, however, the picture was about complete, for the wire services and editors the country over began to “lay” the story, concentrating all news of the event in one place, featuring the story by headlining and position, dramatizing it through pictures, invoking every “expert" in the land for pontification.

If we take Los Angeles as an example, it is interesting to note the lack of "live" news at the moment. The sensational Overell murder case had become involved in legal technicalities. There had not been for some time a sex crime where the “partially clad body" of a beautiful, young woman had been found.3 At the national level, John L. Lewis had been “good” for several weeks, coming to terms with the big steel companies, and the Russian”front" was still stalemated.

In the week of the saucer story St. Louis was concerned with the threat of flood and Chicago was involved in bitter discussion of rent control, but these were matters of local interest. In most of the nation it was a “ low” week, from an editor's viewpoint.4 

The scarcity of news was thus a large factor in the rapid increase of interest in the story. This increase is shown by a table, based on the Los Angeles Times: 

Date Total Inches   Page One Inches 

July 4  6 

July 5  28 

July 6  92  36 

July 7  136  32 

July 8  95  18 

July 9  57  13 

July 10  8 

Samples of flying saucer headlines

The Los Angeles Herald Express, on July 7, devoted over half the front page to the story, putting it in the same class as V-J Day and the "Black Dahlia" sex murder. The national coverage is somewhat less than the Los Angeles average. The Chicago Sun, not a “yellow" sheet in the usual sense, devoted 194 inches, 60 on the front page, on July 8. The story was displayed with two “end of the world" headlines, an 84-point and a 72-point streamer, both 8 columns.5 This is little less than the V-J Day display. 

The Cleveland Plain Dealer was more representative of the conservative press, with a  peak of 68 inches and a maximum of 18 inches on page one. The St. Louis Post Dispatch, recognized for its sense of news values, did not go above 55 inches, and never displayed the story higher than the fold of the front page. Both papers tended to treat the saucer as a human interest feature and not as news. 

Any such discussion by the press is, of course, a repetition of the concept. Whether the story is based on “ acts" or not, whether it is "true" or not, does not matter; for public opinion is often based not on a thing, measurably objective, but on a picture of a thing, repeated. It is better, perhaps, as Hitler demonstrated with his “big lie,” that the basis of the concept be not easy to demonstrate, allowing for the creative imagination of the teller and the lazy credulity of of the hearer. 

It follows, then, that the use of variation in report is an obvious strengthening factor. The skeptic is deceived by this lack of dogma, saying to himself, “ of course the stories are fantastic, but they have something in common; some common experience produced them." He thus maintains his sense of objectivity and can discuss the matter "rationally." In a sample mass-observation interview 6 it was found that few denied the simple concept, the majority merely attacking details which seemed to weaken the validity of the whole : e.g., “ as big as a five-room house,” "it disintegrated before my eyes." 

Another function of variation is that the individual is not inhibited but can exalt himself by observing some new features of the saucer. The conservative individual, too, is not unduly offended. He may accept the older, “proved” parts of the  concept and reject the new, perhaps more specific in detail.7 
Such repetition, in all its variations, and the endorsement by the authority of the press are the two basic “causes” of public opinion about the flying saucer. Other forces, however, were at work. 

“Scientific" evidence and speculation were soon brought to bear on the subject, strengthening the authority of the press. A “savant" "sees" one and, headlined, achieves authority far beyond that usually invested in a dairy inspector, which he was. Other “experts” report their observations: a meteorologist seems to give credence to the man-made aspect of the phenomena by denying that they are meteors; an engineer, who turns out to be only a pilot, chases one of the objects, discussing it later in terms of a plane spotter, another form of “expert” ; a priest finds something in his back yard, still hot, and takes three days to admit it is a hoax; the FBI, stereotype of accuracy and dependability,  investigates; physicists explain that “all rapidly moving bodies look elliptoid.”

The photographer presents his "factual" evidence, a series of blurs on a negative. Artists reinforce the concept with Buck Rogers pictures. Historians discuss the appearance of saucers in past years — the strange missiles over Sweden in 1946, something in San Francisco a few years ago. The air force admits one “flying wing," which might look like a saucer but it is still on the ground. 

With few exceptions the experts do not say that the discs exist: The spot on the film might be; the drawing could represent; the shape is possible; history has recorded something. In fact, usually buried deep in the story, is the statement or inference that the expert does not credit the stories at all. But the denial is in terms of the things it denies. 

Such denial merely serves to instill the picture more firmly in the public mind For it is obvious that a denial is as much a repetition of the concept as is an affirmation.8 Especially strong is the denial by the air force, so firmly stated that it must conceal “top drawer" secrets. 

Wit, too, is a denial, making homely the unusual. The homely we can accept. Ridicule also strengthens our belief, clearing away our doubts with the acid of emotion.9 So we find the saucer joke, the saucer gag, and clever ridicule working with the "straight news" story to make familiar the unusual. The concept having been fixed, interest in it is maintained at a strategic level by relating it to the public tensions of the moment. One newspaper displayed the story between news of Russian aggression and features on compulsory military training. 

Such juxtaposition is, of course, accidental in most cases, but a glimpse at the less responsible press will show how editors can build tension merely by relating other tensions. Such news as that of the atomic bomb, Russia, and our "shell of an army, a handful of 1,500,000 men" is soon read with eyes "big as saucers." By suggestion the public is led to see dangers which may not in fact exist, for example, the chaos which will result if the discs are part of a "foul plot of the Reds," -who are "out for world domination." By juxtaposition the press can suggest without a grain of evidence. By innuendo concept is related to concept, each reinforcing the other, wheels within wheels.10 The deliberate display techniques used by many papers, three of four in Los Angeles, is sound "journalism" perhaps, if weak logically.

We have seen how the concept was developed, how through repetition and the authority of the press and "experts" it became accepted. The pattern has much in common with the creation of Hitler's "Jew" or the manufacture of a stock "Communist." It is the die by which un-American activity committees mold the stereotype "un-American." It is the blueprint of the unsemantic world  of unreason. 

If, as the President's Commission on Civil Liberties has stated, we are in for a period of ogres, of witch hunts, and of jousting with the straw men built of hate, then it seems wise that we study the method by which they are introduced to the public. It might be useful when someone tries to prepare the way for a man on a White Horse. 

Notes

1 See Sofia/ Distance, a Syllabus, University of Southern California.

2 (Citation missing. Deals with story receiving authority solely due to being covered by the press.)

3 During the short span of the saucer story Los Angeles seems to have solved the problem of the "sex-fiend." Cf. Lincoln Steffens, Autobiography of Lincoln Steffens, p. 285 ff., the chapter entitled, “I Make a Crime Wave." 

4 Papers studied closely include those of Los Angeles, St. Louis, Chicago, New York, Columbus. A quick survey of Atlanta, San Francisco, Dallas, Cleveland, and Cincinnati papers showed no significant differences.

5 72 point equals 1 inch.  

6 Redlands, California, July 10. 

7 Cf. our ideas of "One World," a concept which most accept because it has the authority of age, 8 or 10 years, and because of its generality, which each can interpret. Many, however, reject the details of such a concept, which are its logical projection.

8 "Coca-Cola does not refresh" is almost as effective as "Coca-Cola, the pause that refreshes." Cf. the kidding of product and sponsor on some radio shows. 

9 Cf. the use of wit in anti-Semitism and the deliberate manufacturing of the “darky,"  happy-go-lucky, shiftless. Magazines such as the Saturday Evening Post have well-known formulas for Negro characters. Cf. also the force of ridicule in building the self-stereotype of minority groups as "God's chosen people." 

10 Cf. from the congressional debate on the Atomic Commission : Lilienthal was born in Lithuania; Lithuania is now part of Russia; so, it is suggested but not stated, Lilienthal is a "Red."

About the Author

Herbert Lewis Hackett, 
as a boy in 1929 

At the time of the article, Herbert Lewis Hackett was Assistant Professor of Journalism, Ohio Wesleyan University Delaware, Ohio. He was an instructor in the department of journalism and English, and also taught writing skills training into the framework of an introductory course in sociology. He was the author of several books on writing.

Here's a brief biography by his grandson, Ethan Daniel Davidson:

My grandfather was Herbert Lewis Hackett, born 16 January, 1917, Rangoon, Burma. He ended up back in the States, by the outbreak of WWII. After having earned his PhD in Linguistics from University of Michigan, he was drafted into the Army, commissioned as a Captain, given the assignment of teaching English to German POWs at a camp in Shamrock, Texas. He seems to have gotten into a fight with his CO after hearing of his father's death, and was ultimately discharged; it's my understanding he was a very reluctant conscript anyway. It was while working at the camp that he met the daughter of an itinerant preacher: Sarah Wilborn. Herbert and Sarah moved frequently, as Herbert was a college Professor: Arkansas, Salt Lake, Lansing, Buffalo. Herbert died of a heart attack in Buffalo, 1964.

Herbert L. Hackett, 1957

He didn't seem to have much else to say about UFOs, but used them as an example in his 1957 book on writing clearly, Understanding, and Being Understood:

"Is the report on the facts consistent within itself? This question implies that facts should not contradict themselves. An early report of the flying saucer, for example, stated that it moved at two thousand miles an hour, and that it had a "blister" in which two or three men were observed; yet that speed would make it impossible for an observer to note such details.”

Book Review: Bad UFOs by Robert Sheaffer

Bad UFOs: Critical Thinking About UFO Claims by Robert Sheaffer

Robert Sheaffer has been covering the UFO beat a long time, reading the literature, attending conferences, corresponding, debating with the players, and has become a part of its history. In the book,"Bad UFOs: Critical Thinking About UFO Claims," Sheaffer covers a range of UFO cases, topics and personalties from the dawn of the era, up to recent events. Frankly, some of which read like a hall of shame,  and it could have been titled, UFOlogy’s Greatest Misses.” I can picture some scoundrels in UFOtown tearing through the pages, praying that their products and names aren’t in it. Sheaffer does mention a few good eggs along the way, “UFO realists,” but as the title suggests, he’s focused on the bad ones. 

Robert Sheaffer, meanie. That’s what some UFO buffs have heard, and skeptics and debunkers are supposed to be attacking the very existence of UFOs, close-minded to the point of denying the truth, and rumor has it that some of them are even discrediting witnesses and evidence. Trace those tales to the source, and you’ll see they originated with phonies who didn’t want their carnival act exposed, people like Silas Newton, George Adamski and Jaime Maussan. The truth is more complicated, but then, that’s why so few people bother with it. 

What many UFO/ET proponents fail to appreciate about skeptics and debunkers is that the devils are observing the same kind of claims about extraordinary things on a range of other topics, not just UFOs. There’s more in common with UFOs, Ghost, Bigfoot and Nessie than the ET camp would like to admit, and it lies in the seeker. It’s about the quest for something extraordinary, with belief driving the investigation. The big problem there is that they regularly accept insubstantial evidence if it bolsters their beliefs. Witness testimony is subject to great problems ranging from accuracy to authenticity, and the record of photo and physical evidence shows an alarmingly high tolerance for counterfeits. Sheaffer sees the absurdity and humor in the UFO circus, something the field seems incapable of seeing about itself. Worse, they seem incapable of dealing with frauds, and policing themselves. Like disgraced televangelists, if they have an apology or excuse, proven UFO scoundrels are welcomed back into the fold.

Table of contents from Bad UFOs

One recurring theme in Sheaffer’s book is that a UFO claim surfaces, gets  embraced by the ET camp, and then is fiercely defended against not only challenges to its authenticity, but even logical questions about it. They get sour when it falls flat, but they are willfully ignoring their own statistics. According to MUFON, 80 to 90% of UFO reports crumble after being investigated, the remnant serving to keep hope alive, designated as “unknowns.”  By cherishing UFO stories before all the facts are in, frequent disappointments are assured.

Sheaffer holds up a mirror to the UFO circus, and many in it won’t like the picture.  Where I disagree with Sheaffer is over the conclusion that the study of UFOs is futile. My personal opinion is that it ufology should work towards co-operating with existing astronomical and meteorological projects, instead of trying to re-invent or duplicate them.  Sheaffer convincingly makes the case that the current value or purpose of UFO study is only self-perpetuation, promoting UFO beliefs: that there’s a mystery and behind it is ET visitation.

The book discusses several key cases, some in detail, others in passing, including famous sightings from Kenneth Arnold to Kenju Terauchi’s report of a giant spaceship to recent cases. In these, he points out the recurring problems with the evidence or the interpretation of it. So often, it comes down to stories, and looking at the alien abduction accounts from Betty and Barney Hill to Emma Woods, these incredible tales emerged through hypnosis. In other stories, like those of Roswell alien bodies and the conflicting claims at Rendlesham Forest, Sheaffer shows that many of the heavily-promoted UFO tales have plot holes, big black plot holes, big enough to swallow planet Nibru. 

Chances are, if you are seeing this, you’ll read a UFO book or two this year, and “Bad UFOs” should be one of them. If you are used to taking UFO stories on faith alone, you may want to throw it across the room a few times. Instead, take one of the cases discussed and look up the documentation for it, and to see for yourself if the facts back up the legends you’ve been told about it. The cases that hold up to the challenges of skeptics are the one really worth pursuing.

About the UFOs being spacecraft, Sheaffer also reintroduces some hard scientific facts that many ET proponents don’t know, or choose to ignore about the overwhelming physical impracticality of interstellar space travel. Even folding or warping space seems out of the realm of possibility, and to make it work, something like magic must be needed. Just how are the visitors getting here? Perhaps believing is the key to seeing. Dr. Steven Greer can lead you through meditation to summon and communicate with ETI spacecraft. Sometimes, you won’t see them at first, but with patience, Greer can teach you how- for a price. 

Sheaffer thinks that behind all the UFO stories, there’s nothing but cases of mistaken identity, wishful thinking and fraud. I hope he’s wrong, and that there is a rare, genuine phenomenon, whatever it is. I do agree, however, that the problems he discusses are severe and until UFOtown polices itself, it’ll remain a ghetto- or a ghost town.

Robert Sheaffer

Bad UFOs: Critical Thinking About UFO Claims

Trade papeback

292 pages $18.95

http://book.badufos.com

Val Johnson 1979: Prelude to Cash-Landrum?

Val Johnson in a reenactment for That's Incredible!

The Cash-Landrum story is a perplexing case, and a lot of attention is given to Betty Cash's skin problems, which have been mythologized as radiation burns from the UFO. As dramatic as it is, it’s by no means the first instance of UFO “sunburn.” Claims of burns from UFO encounters go way back; some notable early examples are the Sonny Desvergers “Scoutmaster”story, Palm Beach, Florida, 1952, Levelland, Texas, 1957, Loch Raven Dam, Maryland, 1958, and Stefan Michalak, Falcon Lake, 1967. 

It didn’t end there, and reports and rumors of UFO burns became a staple in UFO literature. In 1977 movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind introduced the concept to millions, and was highlighted in the scene where Roy Neary shows his wife his burns from a UFO, and insists that it is not a "moonburn."

Val Johnson

There were other cases shortly before the Cash-Landrum event with UFO burns, some that received nationwide news coverage. The Jerry McAlister UFO sighting on September 11, 1980 has previously been posted here.  His case featured a huge, brilliant UFO that allegedly left the witnesses suffering eye damage and radiation burns.

Before that, a much more famous case featured some details that would be found again in the Cash-Landrum case. On Aug. 27, 1979, Deputy Sheriff Val Johnson was driving  along a lonely road at night, when he saw a blindingly brilliant UFO above the road ahead. Unlike the C-L case, he didn’t stop, and his vehicle collided with the UFO. The car was damaged, and he suffered injuries including “welder’s burns” to his eyes. When help arrived, Johnson was taken to the hospital for an examination and to treat his injuries.  Unlike the C-L case, there was extensive visible damage to his car, and it was preserved as evidence and carefully examined.

That’s Incredible!

There’s another possible connection to the Cash-Landrum case. The popular television show, “That’s Incredible!” debuted in March of 1980 and ran until 1984. It often featured UFO cases, and in its first season they aired a segment on the Val Johnson story. It featured a reenactment of the event, and an appearance by investigator Alan Hendry of the Center for UFO Studies. Johnson was presented as a credible witness, and it showed that his doctor, employer and family stood behind him. 

What was strange, though, was that at the end of the segment, host John Davidson asked Johnson a question out of left field.

“Was it a religious experience for you? 

Many times these events are a religious experience.”

A strange and seemingly scripted question, perhaps to allow Johnson the opportunity to unburden on the topic. The effect was to suggest that UFO sighings are expected to have a religious element.

Vickie Landrum in particular put emphasis on how she initially took the UFO to be the Second Coming. She said, "The Bible says the sky will split and in a rain of fire, Jesus will come." Could the Cash-Landrum witnesses have been influenced by this program, perhaps in how they reported their story? In 1981, they appeared on “That’s Incredible!” themselves.

The rare segment with Val Johnson on “That’s Incredible!” recently surfaced on YouTube. It’s certainly interesting in and of itself, for the insight into his case it provides, and as a bit of UFO history.

For the full story of the Val Johnson case, see this article by Chris Rutkowski:
 The Val Johnson CE2 case of 1979 

Cash-Landrum キャッシュ・ランドラム Japanese UFO Documentary

The search for original documents on the Cash-Landrum case continues, and that extends to early media coverage of the events. The story received international attention and was covered at least twice by Japanese Television.

Below is a segment posted on YouTube on the case from a Japanese television show featuring witnesses Betty Cash, Vickie Landrum and investigator John Schuessler. It’s particularly notable for Betty and Vickie participating in a reenactment of the UFO encounter instead of the being portrayed by actors. Colby did not participate and is shown only in a school photograph.

I’ve been unable to locate details on this program, but reportedly, there was a documentary featuring the case filmed in May of 1989, and aired in August in Japan.

"890518 - People from Nippon Television Network of Japan complete Cash Landrum film, interview John Lear... in Houston, Texas.

890923 - Cash-Landrum documentary shown in Japan."

Nippon Television producer Jun'ichi Yaoi was very active in the 80s and 90s and filmed many UFO documentaries shown on NTV, and it is very likely this would have been one of his projects. However, it’s also possible this was an unknown US program dubbed for use in a Japanese broadcast.  I don’t think this clip is from this 1989 show, though. After comparing it against Betty's appearance in the 1988 show below, I feel strongly it must be from something earlier, maybe 1983. While the show mentions Area 51, which surfaced late 80s, but that could be material edited in years later.

Betty Cash from the Japanese clip, and at right from 1988 in UFO Cover-Up Live

Unfortunately, a translation of the program is not available, since the real value in programs like this comes from the opportunity to hear directly from the witnesses themselves. So often direct testimony is not available and we only hear the UFO cases summarized and reinterpreted by others. 

UFO科学大学院の公開講座(F)をUFO科学大学院(USS)から紹介します

If anyone has information on this program or other non-USA shows featuring the Cash-Landrum case, please share the details by contacting Blue Blurry Lines.

The Roswell Slides Return: a Book and a Conference

Jaime Maussan was an honored guest at the annual MUFON Symposium. There was considerable controversy about his inclusion, and in June he was invited on their KGRA program with Erica Lukes to deflect some of the criticism and to defend BeWitness and the Roswell Slides.

MUFON Executive director,  Jan Harzan on how and why Maussan was welcome:

Another long time UFO Speaker and Journalist is Jaime Maussan fresh from the “Roswell Slide” controversy. Several people have asked me why he is speaking at the MUFON Symposium and my answer is pretty simple. I invited him at the beginning of 2015, well before the slide discussion, and my reason for doing so is because he has some of the best UFO video footage I have ever seen. Being involved in UFOs over the past 40 years, and owning his own television station and TV show in Mexico, Jaime has tens of thousands of people from all over the world sending him their UFO videos. He has narrowed these down to the 100 best videos you will ever see in this field.  I have had the good fortune to see his presentation twice in the past year, and I can tell you it is quite impressive. So much so that I am looking forward to seeing it a third time! I might also add that right after Jaime speaks on Sunday... we hold a Panel on “Making Ufology Respectable” with the idea being that if there was ever an event or breakthrough in Ufology how would or should we as Ufologists go about announcing it to the world. He proposed using the “Roswell Slide” experience as an example to learn from. 

Harzan and Maussan at the 2015 MUFON Symposium

Leading up to the Symposium, Maussan had been silent for months on the Slides, but during his presentation of UFO video clips a segment was devoted to the Roswell Slides. He claims that the body in the Slides is not the body pictured and described in the National Park Service documents, or the placard identifying it. Here's video of the presentation:

The Roswell Slides portion begins at 47:59

Making Ufology Respectable

Afterwards, there was the panel, “Making Ufology Respectable." From the advertisement:

With Stanton Friedman, Robert Wood, Jaime Maussan, Marc d'Antonio, and Cheryl Jones. This panel asks the question what IF the UFO community were presented with the smoking gun evidence that would end the debate on UFOs permanently. How should we go about substantiating that evidence and presenting it to the scientific community and general public in a credible way that ends the debate on UFOs permanently? Is this even possible? Would anyone listen? The "Roswell Slide" announcement will be used as one example and lessons learned discussed about what went right and what went wrong, and how can we do even better next time.

“Making Ufology Respectable"

Lee Spiegel joined the panel, and provided the only criticism of the Slides fiasco. He said that he avoided the story, and that if you are trying to present a smoking gun, don't hype it before you have finished your investigation. MC John Greenewald seemed to give him a pass, saying that Maussan had brought a lot of attention to ufology, and that he shouldn't be blamed for trying.

Most of the other discussion was hypothetical, panelists saying what kind of evidence they would try to present as proof or how they'd do it. Maussan asserted that he had done tried to do everything right, but it was rejected by critics and disbelieved since it happened in Mexico instead of the USA. He said the case is not closed and that experts in Mexico are still studying the evidence. Maussan left he panel early, and no solid conclusion was reached on how to make Ufology respectable.

Maussan heavily advertises his participation in the MUFON Symposium, using it to enhance his status. He offers a replay of it to his paid subscribers at Tercer Milenio. 

It's not over yet

Maussan Productions has a new book out, available through iTunes for $19.99.
It's listed as BeWitness, detrás del caso Roswell by Tomas J. Carey, Donald R. Schmitt & Jaime Maussan. The ad and excerpt don't mention the Slides, it just alludes to "new evidence." At present, the book is only available in Spanish.

There's also a show...

Maussan had promised a scientific examination of the evidence, but that was postponed from June due to the release of the National Park Service documents conclusively identifying the body. Now, he's announced this for Oct. 26 at 12 PM, "ANALISIS DE UN CUERPO NO HUMANO":

Dr. Miguel Angel and Maussan

There's a video on YouTube...

beWITNESS, El Análisis y Debate / 

BeWITNESS the Analysis and debate

(Since removed)

It's part of a series of videos at Tercer Milenio: 
Se Pospone el Debate beWITNESS, Recompensa beWITNESS, Dos posibles Seres No Humanos, Comparación Forense del Cuerpo de beWITNESS and Comparación del Ser de beWITNESS.

The presentation is listed as an analysis and debate, but only Dr. Miguel Angel and his INACIFO associates are mentioned. The participation of the Tom Carey, Don Schmitt, Adam Dew and other financial partners is unknown. This event is free to attend, although there is no mention of the free streaming of this event as previously advertised.

There's been no mention of the event outside of Tercer Milenio, nothing on their Twitter or Facebook accounts or the personal ones for Jaime Maussan. It's almost as if they are avoiding international exposure for this. To the jaded eye, it would appear that Maussan is staging this event in an attempt to salvage a wedge of doubt that the Slides show an unusual body.

Maussan has been through this kind of thing before. He has a long history of holding on to and promoting discredited UFO and alien stories.

The Metepec Creature: author confess hoax

The BeWitness fiasco stink seems to have landed on Carey and Schmitt. For Maussan, business goes on as usual.