The Moon has an Alibi: A Saucer Smear Exclusive

Controversial player in the C-L saga

“The sky had partially cleared and the moon was visible in the night sky….

Because of the light of the moon and the helicopters’ running lights, 

the craft were clearly visible.”

Schuessler, J, Fate Magazine,  May 1984 (Volume 37, No. 5 Issue 410) Clark Publishing Co. pg 32-36 

A Saucer Smear Scoop

The Cash-Landrum UFO encounter occurred around 9:00 p.m. near Huffman, Texas on the evening of December 29, 1980. Jim Moseley was deeply interested in the case and the plight of the witnesses. He wrote about it several times.

"If the same amount of concerted effort had been put into solving this case as was put into solving the Roswell Incident, the Cash-Landrum case would have been properly explained long ago." -Jim Moseley

James W. Moseley, UFO authority

Way back in 2012, Saucer Smear publisher James W. Moseley was on the trail of the controversy about the investigation of the Cash-Landrum case. As published, Feb. 15, 2012:

From the original letter to Jim, dated 1/6/2012

There’s a seemingly minor thing that is a big clue to how this case was handled. In MUFON Journal June 1986, there’s a letter from Scottish skeptic Steuart Campbell. Campbell cites an article by Schuessler “Blind Terror in Texas”, published by “The Unexplained” UK magazine in 1982. He says the witnesses mentioned seeing the Moon, and goes on to document that the Moon didn’t appear until after midnight, and supposing the event happened much later, analyzes what celestial objects the witnesses could have mistaken for a UFO.

Finding a copy of the Unexplained article in the clippings, I was able to read it for myself. The witnesses do not put the Moon in the sky, Schuessler does: 
"Light from the third-quarter Moon, supplemented an airglow from the lights in the surrounding area, made the sky bright and the visibility good."

I'm guessing he looked at an almanac and saw a 3/4 Moon listed and added it as a background detail. I got an astronomical program that recreates historical night skies from around the globe and checked the Moon position as seen from the area for Dec. 29, 1980, and Campbell seems to be right about the timing of the the Moon, it appeared at about 1:00 a.m.  

This mistake about the Moon may indicate that there could be other, bigger problems with wishful thinking around the way evidence was gathered and presented.

UFO Docu-fiction?

Dramatic License to Kill

Jim was a rascal in his extended youth and perpetrated some pranks and even UFO hoaxes. However, he had a serious side, and did much good work over the years in exposing some UFO phonies. For some reason, Jim had a surprisingly low tolerance for fiction mixed in with UFO reports. (His term for this was bullshit.)  He was highly critical of Donald Keyhoe's works, as the Major often created dialogue (and internal thoughts) for dramatic effect in his retelling of cases.

Gray Barker took Moseley's notes of his 1950s UFO investigations and ghost wrote The Wright Field Story (currently in print as The Astounding UFO Secrets of James W. Moseley ). Moseley took every opportunity to disavow this work, as he despised the fictionalized framework. Having compared it to Jim's original manuscript, I think Barker's literary license was acceptable. He just framed things with a (plausibly) fictional framework and recounted Jim's case files in flashback without gross exaggeration or distortion. History books often do worse!

Speaking of Dramatic License...

Let's get back to one of Jim's favorites, the Cash-Landrum case. What's all this about the Moon? On numerous occasions, John Schuessler presents the moon as a contributing factor in the visibility of the helicopters pursuing the UFO. (See exhausting list at bottom for full listing.)

In a UFO case, I'm told the initial step is in the investigation is to determine the astronomical landscape and eliminate heavenly bodies as suspects. I've scoured the literature (and television interviews) and have found no statements by the witnesses, referring to the Moon. 

I used the Stellarium astronomical software (endowed by MUFON) to recreate the night sky from the approximate location. No moon that night until about 1:00 p.m. By that time, the witnesses were said to be long home and sick in bed.

Not trusting the software, I checked with a Saucer Smear asset, Tim Printy, author of the SUNlite website (self-appointed heir to Phil Klass' Skeptical UFO Newsletter). Tim's typically curt reply:

"I have looked at some MUFON articles on the matter though. I am not sure where he got his information about the moon but you are correct.  The moon had not risen until after midnight.  If you want to verify it, go to the USNO website. They can give you the moonrise-set/sunrise-set for any location. 

http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/RS_OneDay.php "

It checked out. No Moon during the sighting.

Paging an Expert

Ian Ridpath knows about the Moon
photo by Max Alexander

Recently, Robert Sheaffer presented a piece on the case and the brilliant and charming Ian Ridpath weighed in with some comments. Being a college drop-out, I seek knowledgeable people when it comes to serious matters like dentistry and astronomy, so I sought his aid for a more definitive statement, a testimonial. Printed here with his permission:

"Any planetarium program, of which there are many now available, will tell you that the Moon, which was a day past last quarter, did not rise until about 01.15 on Dec 30 at that location. It rose almost due east and followed the bright planets Saturn and Jupiter by about 50 minutes.

Hence, if the witnesses claim to have seen the Moon at the time of the event, there are a number of alternatives: 

1. The event did not take place at the time they said
2. The event did not take place on the date they said
3. The event did not take place on either the date or the time they said
4. The witnesses are in some way mistaken about what they saw
5. The witnesses are making stuff up.

Given the circumstances, it would seem that they are unlikely to have been mistaken about the date or time, which leaves alternatives 4 and 5. That assumes, of course, that they really did mention the Moon, and it's not simply a piece of "color" added later by the investigator. 

I am sure that Robert S, no mean astronomer himself, will confirm my data.

I hope this is of use.

     All the best, Ian"

Let me repeat that for emphasis, just as Jim would have done in Smear:

"That assumes, of course, that they really 
did mention the Moon, and it's not simply 
a piece of "color" added later by the investigator."

Back to what I told Jim, 

"The witnesses do not put the Moon in the sky, Schuessler does"

Jerome Clark, UFO historian, and friend of Jim's, appeared on the radio program, The Paracast:
(August 26, 2012 -- Jerome Clark)

Listener's questions were solicited. As "Sentry", I posed the following question to Clark with Schuessler's Cash-Landrum embellishments in mind:

"A certain amount of dramatic license is expected in retelling a paranormal event, but some writers go too far. At what point does a dramatic portrayal become fiction?"

Jerome Clark's reply:

"When you start making stuff up."

I'll allow one of the witnesses to have the last word.

"...there's a lot of quacks, there really is, that's supposed to be big UFO dealers and wheelers, and they're not after hunting the truth, they after something, proving something that's unreal. What was up there was real. It hurt us. It wasn't (from) outer space either." -Vickie Landrum, interviewed at Bergstrom AFB, 1981

Disclaimer:
In Jim's honor, I had a few drinks during the assembly of this article.
A rehabilitated version may be published later. Or it may get worse.   (Version 6)

Old Smuggler

And as always, around this time of year, we like to say a word in 

the memory of our dear friend, Gray Barker.

Keep your eye on the sky!

- - -

Sex & Saucers: Hot chick version with Schuessler's Moon

Laborious Supporting Notes

THE MOON: References in Case Coverage

1981 CUFOS Symposium- Moon not mentioned as source of illumination.

MUFON Journal November 1981 (John Schuessler)

“Illumination from the glowing object clearly showed details of the helicopters even though the night was dark and the moon was in the third quarter.”

MUFON UFO Symposium...1982 (July 2, 3, 4) Toronto, Canada
"UFO's Canada - A Global Perspective" / edited by Walter H. 

Andrus and Dennis W. Stacy. 

Seguin, TX : Mutual UFO Network, 1982. - 104 s. : ill.

“Radiation Sickness Caused by UFOs" by John F. Schuessler, M.S.

MOON: Illumination from the glowing object clearly showed details of the helicopters even though the night was dark and the moon was in the third quarter.

MUFON Journal October 1982 (from the 1982 interview)

LL Walker: “...I looked a little bit closer and you could see some lower lights back off in the distance quite a ways back. I'd say about % of a mile — real good visibility that night...”

The Unexplained” UK magazine 1982 by John Schuessler: 

"Light from the third-quarter Moon, supplemented an airglow from the lights in the surrounding area, made the sky bright and the visibility good."

MUFON Journal September 1983 (John Schuessler)

The weather ranged from clear and hot to cold, damp, windy, and chilly. Houston, 

Texas air contains a lot of moisture which acts like little crystals that catch all light from the city, moon and cars and reflect it in an airglow manner that leaves the sky very light much of the time. A deep, dark night in the Houston area is unusual.  pg 5

The weather on December 29, 1980 was chilly. The witnesses reported the intermittent misty rain earlier in the day. By evening that had stopped. The clouds were high and broken and the moon was in the third quarter. The air was damp and full of moisture. The airglow of Houston was bright. The conditions were correct for being able to see helicopters flying at night. pg. 6

Fate Magazine, May 1984 (Volume 37, No. 5 Issue 410) Clark Publishing Co. pg 32-36 (Victims of a Close Encounter by John F. Schuessler

MOON and helicopter visibility (2 mentions)

“The sky had partially cleared and the moon was visible in the night sky.”

“Because of the light of the moon and the helicopters’ running lights, the craft were clearly visible.”

MUFON Symposium 1984: no moon mention

MUFON Journal June 1986: Steuart Campbell

Dear Editor,

My attention has recently been drawn to the UFO report made by Betty Cash and Vickie  Landrum (after an alleged incident near Huffman, Texas, on 1980 Dec. 29). My source of information is John Schuessler's article "Blind terror in Texas" in The Unexplained 9(107) 2121-25, (1982). 

Looking for an astronomical explanation I noticed that the given time (9 p.m.) could not be correct; the witnesses reported seeing the Moon, but the Moon did not rise until just after 1 a.m. Nor is it likely that, after dining out, they were returning home as early as 9 p.m. A more likely time is near midnight. : Just after midnight Canopus, the second brightest star in the whole sky

(magnitude -0.71), lay at only 7° altitude directly south (180°). Highway FM 1485 runs in a dead straight line almost due south for 4 miles on a slight downward gradient (1 in 621 on average). With forest on either side of the road, this would have given the travelers a headon view of Canopus if they were on that road at the time Canopus was lined up with it. At that low altitude, the light from Canopus would have been both refracted (into spectral colors) and distorted (with streamers to the ground). The description given is consistent with other accounts of stars

seen at low altitude. The conclusion must be that Cash and Landrum, not knowing that they were loking at a star, concluded that it was a UFO, ideas about which influenced their perception. Their conclusions that the car became hot and that they suffered burns must be the result of hysteria. One would have liked to know how much alcohol they had consumed and what UFO lore they had already absorbed. One would also have liked to know whether or not the road surface (where they imagined the UFO to be) was affected by heat. I predict that no such damage will have been found. Although it is alleged that the object later moved "away over the tree tops" it must be concluded that this later object was not Canopus, which would have disappeared behind the forest. It is not clear from Schuessler's article exactly where subsequent objects were seen, but Jupiter (at magnitude -1.8) later rose in the west (accompanied by- Saturn in close conjunction). The witnesses may have thought that Jupiter was the same UFO.

Yours faithfully

Stcuart Campbell

Scotland

(Betty Cash Replies)

TO ALL OF THE MUFON GROUP,

Just a note to thank all of you for your very hard and time-consuming work that you have done for Vickie,

Colby (Landrum) and myself. Without each of you, I really don't know what we would have done.

Please accept my apologies for such people that you have to listen to such as Steuart Campbell. People like

that are to be pitied. He said he even doubted our credibility — well I doubt his mentality. All I can say is that it is such a shame it was us. It should have been him and then we would see if he would have said it was a star. Just one day of what we have suffered would have been too much for him — not even speaking of the years.

May God bless each and everyone of you for your great work.

Betty Cash

Alabama

---

MUFON symposium 1986- no moon mention

The Cash-Landrum UFO Incident- Minor moon references only in text, reprints MUFON Journal article from Nov. 1981.

Quote from secondary witness, police officer LL Walker, describing visibility: “… it was close enough just their running lights and everything and enough starlight and everything and moon and everything that I could tell what they were by the outlines and everything.”

(Note: Walker claims to have witnessed the copters 3 or so hours after the UFO event. It is plausible the Moon was up during his story.)

UFO Hunters: Alien Fallout 2009

L.L. Walker references starlight and moonlight as illuminating the helicopters

Bonus Feature:

Jim replied by my "Moon" letter by postcard:

Dear Curt-                         You have convinced me!  Schuessler should not be a "sacred cow". That item you sent about the Moon is too clear-cut to pass up, the more I think about it. That part of your 1/6 letter will appear in our next glorious issue!

- J.M. (Ret.) 

Jim Moseley postcard dated 1/16/12

C . 2013 Curtis L. Collins

The Cash-Landrum Controversy: Witness or Investigator Culpability

A Belated Rush to Judgment 

Robert Sheaffer picked up on my story of the severe problems with John Schuessler's Cash-Landrum narrative due to the release of the files of the Texas Health department:

Between a Beer Joint and Some Kind of Highway Warning Sign: the "Classic" Cash-Landrum Case Unravels

Robert gives the matter some nice coverage, but unfortunately, he and many of the commenters posting there are losing focus. This information reflects on the integrity of the investigation, not the witnesses. The issue of whether the witnesses were genuine is important, but almost all we know about them comes from a single source, one that now seems questionable.

I keep struggling for an analogy- it's like a sketch artist at a murder trial coming back with pictures of unicorns. We weren't there, and his drawings aren't much help in sorting out the facts.

Factual?

Fabrication?

   

Accusations of Self-inflicted Injuries

Some folks are now ready to just dismiss the entire case as hoax and throw the witnesses under the bus. One poster was particularly nasty. Knowledgable, but full of condescending derision, kind of like a skeptical Jerome Clark. Here's one of his gems:

Crank

Each and every aspect of this fairy tale spells hoax. It's almost a grab bag of hackneyed "UFO" narrative tropes: a remote location at night; the "UFO" is blocking the road; it remotely kills the car ignition; it emits intense light and heat; the witness(es) suffer burns, suggested to be caused by radiation in this case; and promised by Vickie but not appearing is the benevolent Jesus—who would have communicated his scientific and humanitarian concerns much like the Pleiadians; the craft appears to be in trouble or pilot is making repairs; and (as with Maury Island Hoax) other associated aircraft are aiding the distressed.

And even though Betty claimed she had no interest in "UFOs," this PSH skeptic knows that very few are immune to prevailing cultural delusions. Betty and Vickie carried all the current "UFO" myth baggage as every other American bombarded by the images and themes of nuclear radiation, aerospace and black operations, and government conspiracies—if only through cultural osmosis. No one concocts a narrative so utterly saturated with "UFO" tropes without hearing more than just a few "UFO" stories. Betty's hoax is so obvious because its plot is contrary to the way that humans actually behave and in its details—idiotic lies—that expose it.

Betty was a good-ol' East Texas 50 year-old glorified night-shift waitress looking for attention and money, and stupid enough to make up a wild "UFO" story and paint herself with Clorox or pool acid and drink it as well in order to sell her hoax.

Compare with Maury Island; Hill Abduction; Falcon Lake; and dozens of others.

So full of errors and character assassination, it's beyond repair, but I'll comment on a few points.

 True, the individual elements of the sighting are familiar as I've noted here before, you can almost pull and assemble them from scenes from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The witnesses however never made any ET connection to their claims. They assumed it was connected to a military project.

Vickie's comments to Colby about Jesus coming out of the light was born out her belief that they were witnessing the second coming. It had nothing to do with an ET Savior, just the frightening light, flames and strangeness of the event. If you want to find something suspect in her behavior, in some accounts she says that she merely said that to Colby to reassure him.

A kinder, gentler skeptic?

I believe Dr. Gary Posner was the first to suggest the possibility that the witnesses injuries were self-inflicted, but he was a lot more civil doing so. I think the scenario is unlikely. Phil Klass had a more plausible explanation for the creation of a hoax: Betty Cash's problems were real, she was faced with massive medical bills that she could not afford and the hoax was crafted to somehow solve the financial crisis. Klass did not account for the alleged injures to Vickie and Colby, but those were less severe and largely undocumented. They may have been exaggerated to support Betty's story. If we are going to level accusations of self-inflicted injuries it is more plausible that the other two witnesses engaged in it to help sell the story.  Still, making accusations like these without any evidence is unscientific and ungentlemanly.

Witness Credibility 

As I told Robert Sheaffer,

This document can only prove that the investigator was unreliable. The credibility of the witnesses is a separate issue.

The Cash-Landrum witnesses

I can provide a fairly lengthy list of reasonable people who felt that the witnesses were credible. Also, their behavior afterwards is not consistent with UFO hoaxers. The phonies usually place themselves at the center stage of a story, not as bystanders. Most hoaxers continue to seek the spotlight and often have multiple adventures or at least recover new memories to embellish their grand adventure. While the witnesses did participate in several television programs discussing their case, they did not engage in the UFO conference circuit like- well almost everyone else.

Robert has always doubted the case and is ready to Klassify the whole incident as a hoax. As yet, I am unwilling to level that accusation at the witnesses. The inconsistencies in their statements are no greater than this found in conventional eyewitness cases. Later, some faulty associations and emotional hyperbole did creep in (such as the mystery road repaving) but on the whole their story holds up as consistent over the years without further embellishments. I hold out for the possibility there was some kind of genuine experience at the root of the story.

The investigation of the story is another matter, to me. Whether the investigation and the reporting of the events was accurate and honest is in a way the most important issue.

I'm willing to give the witnesses the benefit of a doubt.


As always, comments are welcome.


C. 2013 Curtis L. Collins

John B. Alexander on the DAIG Investigation of the Cash-Landrum UFO Incident

Due to the publicity from television coverage of the Cash-Landrum story (on That’s Incredible!), Oregon Representative Ron Wyden launched an inquiry as to whether U.S. helicopters were involved in the incident. Initially the investigation was conducted by Captain Virginia (Ginny) Lampley of the Air Force. Within a short time, it was clear that the helicopters described in the incident were not Air Force, but matched Army equipment. The Army was given the investigation and the Department of the Army's Inspector General’s office assigned the task to Lt. Col. George C. Sarran. 

CH-47 Army Helicopter

In his investigation, Sarran checked with all bases within range operating helicopters. The incident was said to involve 23 helicopters, but Sarran accounted for emotional exaggeration and was looking for far fewer.

His specific mission was to find if military helicopters were involved, He was not sanctioned to investigate the UFO incident itself, but he felt he must give it some consideration in order to understand what happened and find the source of the helicopters.

Sarran's notes: Telecon with Schuessler

Sarran's notes are not dated, but they show he contacted a number of individuals to consult on the case

Dr. Peter Rank (Radiologist, medical consultant to MUFON, FUFOR).

Dr. Richard C. Niemtzow (Radiation Oncologist, kicked out of VISIT when he joined the Air Force, as they felt he could not be trusted. MUFON medical consultant).

John F. Schuessler (codename Snowbird).

Not mentioned in his notes are two other individuals with a UFO interest who are said to have been consulted,

Lt. Col. John B. Alexander, US Army

Captain Paul Tyler, M.D. USN.

Sarran flew to Houston and spoke with Schuessler and the following people:

Pilot (Culberson)

Vickie Landrum

Betty Cash (by telephone)

L.L. Walker and his wife Marie (helicopter witnesses.

Another alleged helicopter witness refused to be interviewed, a petrochemical executive from Crosby.

Sarran also visited the local military facilities, but found no trace of their involvement in the incident.

Sarran reported negative involvement of U.S. helicopters, but reported that the witnesses were credible. Parts of four lines were redacted when the report was released via a FOIA request.

Sarran's DAIG UFO/Helicopter Report

This was the only (known) official investigation into the incident.

Download PDF: Lt. Col. George C. Sarran’s DAIG report and some related memos

John F. Schuessler covered the DAIG investigation in a MUFON article which was based on this report: John F. Schuessler’s VISIT report on Sarran’s investigation: 21-31 VISIT Investigator's Notes Summary: Investigation by U.S. Army Inspector General 5/9/1982 (11 pages w/ cover)

John B. Alexander was Involved

John Alexander's bio from Military Review, Dec. 1980

In his book, UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities , John B. Alexander discussed the Cash-Landrum case and his involvement in the DAIG investigation by Lt. Col. Sarran. Summarized fairly well in this excerpt from a 2010 interview with Jim Schabel that appeared in the Fortean Times' site: Paranormal Soldier: John Alexander: From Special Services to spoon-benders and UFOs

JS: I understand that, in addition to all the unusual things you did while at INSCOM, you looked in on a famous UFO incident – the Cash Landrum case .

JA: What happened with Cash Landrum is that the Air Force got sued. The witnesses said that they had seen helicopters with the UFO. But their description matched CH-47 helicopt­ers, which are Army. So the case got thrown to the Army, and it ended up at the Army IG where I had worked. A lieutenant colonel at IG by the name of George Sarran got the case. Previously, I had worked with George on other, regular investigations. And he basically called and said, “Help! What is this?”

There were three of us that really got involved. A Navy captain, Paul Tyler, who was an MD, and a guy by the name of Richard Niemtzow, an Air Force MD.

And George just had us come in, look at the material and talk to the witnesses. He had done a really thorough job. But all we came up with was, WTF? We had no idea what this was. And what eventually happened was that the lawsuit was dismissed, because there didn’t appear to be a causal relationship between the US government and the incident. Which is probably true, though the case really was a major mystery. 

John B. Alexander

Further Questions and Answers

I emailed Dr. John B. Alexander about a few things related to the case and his participation.
(The below is stitched together from three different emails. Thanks to Dr. Alexander for allowing me to reproduce it)

Q: Looking back at the report and memos, I see that only the radiologists Dr.s Rank and Niemtzow were named, (you) and Captain Tyler were not mentioned. 
JA: To begin with I'm reaching back over 30 years so I'm sure some details have slipped but I wrote about what I did remember in UFOs: Myths, Conspiracies, and Realities.  I do remember the meeting with George that included MDs Niemtzow and Tyler.  I know there were only four of us including George and I don't recall Rank at all.  I would categorize the meeting as informal and part of Sarran's efforts to try and come to grips with a situation that did not make sense.  
As a side issue, yesterday I got an email from (Billy) Cox that stated this was Sarran's first investigation and therefore he might have been inexperienced.  That is total nonsense.  While I had left DAIG for INSCOM, I had worked with George on other investigations long before this one. It also stated that security clearances were a problem.  They were not.

Q: Do you remember (or have an educated guess as to) what was said in the four redacted lines in the Sarran DAIG report?
JA: I could only guess at what he wrote.  Remember I was only informally asked about the information, not integrally involved in the details or privy to them.  I do remember being impressed with the amount of work that George had done.  Most of the IGs I knew would have farted this off rather quickly.  He didn't, probably because of the impending lawsuit. It was surprising to me that he had even investigate helicopters from other services as well as what the oil industry might have put together.  That was well beyond what he would be required to do in his charter, but does speak to the thoroughness of his investigation. 

 Best guess is that it mentions a person, possibly a civilian, that was not known to others at the time the report was released.  I do note his following statement about the witnesses being "cooperative and helpful."  Note it is unusual that the report was released at all.  At that time all IG reports were exempt from FOIA.

Q: What about? The precursors to the Night Stalkers, Special Forces Task Force 158 (later 160) and their secret training for a second rescue attempt of the American hostages in Iran?
JA: As for TF 160, they were known to us, and George specifically checked them out.  They were eliminated quite quickly. Besides, any such preparation would not have been conducted close to a major metropolitan area.  If your supposition was true about a second rescue, that would have been done at the infamous Area 51 where the conditions area about the same as in Iran.
 

Gratuitous pic of spooky helicopter

Would like to hear what you come up with as well.  As far as I know, we had nothing that would produce the kind of radiation illness that followed.  My view was that given speed of onset and severity of symptoms, they should have been at LD 100 (at least the two women) from any radiation source that we had.

Q: (After sending Dr. Alexander declassified DoD documents about TF 158/160 1980 exercises) Could the incident have been a military exercise accidentally exposing the witnesses to a chemical agent?  

JA: While I was on the periphery of this, I do remember George saying he had checked with TF 160 and eliminated them.  You have obviously done a lot of research and I'd love to see more of the material from TF 160 if you have it.  The closest area mentioned is Lubbock, and that is a hell of a long way from Houston and no indication they were there in late December.  Maybe other documents are more precise.  In addition, while hooks were specifically indicated, there were other types of helicopters spotted.  According to what you provided, the birds were split up for training purposes and only the Little Birds mentioned as being anywhere close (if you consider MS close to Houston), and for a two week period at that.

I don't understand the part about Schuessler providing the medical records.  I thought they came from direct sources as a result of the official investigation (not the IG one).  I'm still in contact with Paul and another doctor (not previously mentioned) who I believe both saw the medical records.

As for the other hypothesis (TF-160 & chemicals etc)  that seems even more complex and unlikely that the original UFO one.  Would love to see any supporting data. Or tell me where it is located.
Appreciate your interest.  I too would like to find an answer to this case.  As stated in my book, I am 100 percent sure it happened. However, it defies explanation and the simple "experimental aircraft gone bad" does not fit for all the reasons I listed.
Thanx

John

. . .

(Note: I was unable to find any further material of substance on the TF 160 scenario.)

See this related post:

How George Sarran’s notes were twisted into a cover-up conspiracy theory.

Cash-Landrum UFO Case: The Legend of the Scorched Road

The Evolution of a Legend

The first road description in the Cash-Landrum case:

“Measurements taken during the post-sighting investigation showed their location to be about 130 feet from the strange craft.” CUFOS Symposium, Sept. 1981, Schuessler, John F. 1988. Medical Injuries Resulting from a UFO Encounter. Mimi Hynek, ed. The Spectrum of UFO Research

A more thorough description: 

“Following the in-home interviews, Vickie took Holt and Schuessler to the scene of the sighting. It was at this time that she did the first timed walk-through of the event. Fairly accurate notes on the location of the incident, UFO and helicopters were taken. The route was retraced and  statements about the activity were recorded. A step-by-step account of the helicopter encounter was made, noting where they were first seen, where they were reengaged, counted, and last seen. 

The scene was revisited a number of times with Vickie, Vickie and Colby, and with all three victims. Other investigators were involved also. Some were with newspapers, others with television productions. John Schuessler participated in most of these excursions. Each time data was recorded and photographs taken.” 

Schuessler, John F., MUFON UFO Journal September 1983, pg. 4.

A Bad Stretch of Road: FM 1485

First printed claim of a burned road:

“As it neared the ground a huge cone of flames belched downward searing the macadam surface of the road.” Schuessler, John F. 1986, "Cash-Landrum UFO Case File: The Issue of Government Responsibility," MUFON 1986 UFO Symposium.

In the newspaper:

Another quirk was the unexplained repair of a melted spot in the road where the incident occurred, Schuessler said." I have photographs of a 15- to 25-foot area where even the center stripe was wiggly," he said. A year later, he said, the spot had been resurfaced. Schuessler said county officials denied any knowledge of the repair. "Twice Burned, Not Shy: Stung By Radiation, Ridicule, Trio Stick To UFO Story," Houston Chronicle September 15, 1991, by Cindy Horswell.

As Seen on TV:

John Schuessler on Unsolved Mysteries, February 6, 1991.

“They were able to tell us exactly where along the road that they stopped, because there were certain markers that identified the spot. They were able to point out exactly what they saw-- the object coming down out of the sky, over the road, and hovering there. They were able to point out a spot on the road that indicated that it had been heated to an extreme level of heating. It was burned, and it was very clear to the naked eye. Several weeks after we went to the spot and saw this burned area, someone came along, dug up the road and hauled it away and replaced it with new asphalt. Some of the witnesses that watched this happen said that people brought in unmarked trucks, dug up the road, put the material on the trucks, covered it with a tarpaulin, and drove away.” 

Dramatization of Schuessler's story by Unsolved Mysteries

No Marks on the Road

Allan Hendry's FUFOR report from April 1981 summarized Schuessler's original report and included information with independent interviews with the primary witnesses. Hendry wrote:

Flames intermittently “whooshed” down towards the road; later examination showed no marks on the pavement.

 

Television again, 2009:

Colby Landrum: “My grandmother told me this is the section from about here about 135 feet in back, and they stripped the pavement from about this point to 135 foot back towards in on the road.”

 Where did this information come from?

“Well, I had heard from different sources. Somebody had told me it was black, unmarked trucks that come in here and actually stripped it. It should throw a red flag up to somebody.”
UFO Hunters, "Alien Fallout" episode aired January 14, 2009.

The road replacement episode sounds like a local legend that somehow crept into case records because the primary case witnesses believed the story and repeated them. The claims of the scorched road seem to appear only after the road was repaved.

I'm working on fully documenting the road story, but here's a rough timeline: 

12/29/1980 UFO Incident on a worn 2-lane country road
2/28/1981 General area of the road examined, photographed. No UFO damage to road in report.
7/11/1981 Recreation of the scene on original road for That's Incredible!
6/16/1982 Recreation of the scene on original road for The UFO Experience.
7/2/1982 MUFON Symposium: road repair 1st mentioned, with claim UFO scorched pavement
12/5/1983 Billy Cox, (Florida) Today visited the scene, “One lane wears a new coat of asphalt.”

APRO Bulletin Sept. 1982, with Schuessler notes. He first hears of repaving

Yes, the road was repaired, but not immediately, and due to ordinary maintenance. It seems to have happened about a year and a half later after the UFO incident, during a period of expansion and construction, when convenience stores and apartments started being built in the area.

The disclosure by Schuessler to the Texas Department of Health (during an investigation at the request of Vickie Landrum) that the witnesses could not identify the sighting location is very difficult to reconcile with his later claims. The legend of the road replacement comes so much later than the events, it would seem to have no legitimate bearing on the case.

More about the road from someone who should know:

Alan Holt participated in Schuessler's first visit to the scene, and is the only other VISIT member who wrote anything about the case. 

Holt lectured at the Second CUFOS Conference held September 25-27, 1981, on "UFO Maneuvers and Radiation." (Later printed in The Spectrum of UFO Research, 1988.) A portion described the Cash-Landrum case:

Vickie and Colby Landrum, Betty Cash traveling isolated road near Dayton, Tex, December 29, 1980 Diamond-shaped UFO emitting a plasma-like flame from the bottom blocked the road. Object rose (flame emission stopped) and was surrounded by 15 double  and single rotor helicopters which “escorted” the object as it moved toward the southwest. UFO and helicopters were observed two more times by the witnesses. UFO and helicopters were noted by additional witnesses

Maneuvers Observed
Hovering with emissions of plasma pulse moving up and down (propulsive-like effects), beeping sounds
Descended and ascended at a slow rate

Radiation Effects
Very intense white light covering or lighting up large area (while hovering)
Intensity substantially decreased while moving
Rose-colored, flame-like plumes emitted from bottom of diamond
Car door handles heated beyond touch temperature
Car’s interior atmosphere heated
Car dash heated sufficiently to leave permanent marks with pressure
Observers suffered effects similar to nuclear/microwave radiation

The above is from the same conference where Schuessler first presented the case. Alan Holt's description of  the UFO's physical behaviors and effects make no mention of burns to the scene. 

C. 2013, Curtis L. Collins