Mansfield helicopter ufo incident

Because the eyewitnesses were there.
They say they were. We only have their statements about where they were and what they saw, and Klass's investigation revealed that some of those statements can't be trusted.

Klass wasn't and has an agenda of debunking the ufo as a meteor. Now who should we trust? Hmmmm...
Klass send his analysis to the Army Agency for Aviation Safety whose deputy commander, Col. Samuel P. Kalagian replied: “I thought your analysis was accomplished in a sound, logical manner.” Subsequently, Kalagian requested permission to reprint highlights of the analysis in the agency’s safety publication, The Army Flier.

So somebody doesn't agree with you that Klass was biased.

But wait a minute! You always say we ought to assume that people don't have agendas and don't make stuff up unless there is proof to the contrary, right? So, where's your evidence that Klass had "an agenda" on this case? According to what you preach, we should accept that Klass was upright and honest throughout, unless something shows that was not the case.

Why do you have these double standards - one for your "witnesses" and one for the "skeptics"?

Describes it as a craft with a white spotlight "moving over the top of us" and a red leading light. That's not a meteor, which would only be one white blinding flash.
You are very certain about everything. A meteor can only be a blinding white flash. No other possiblities. How do you know this?

Is this like where you claimed that the planet Venus can only ever look like a bright white light?

Over and over again, you make assumptions before you even start to investigate the possibilities. And all your assumptions point consistently in only one direction: this or that can only be an alien spacecraft (or other "paranormal" manifestation).

Let's face it, you are hopelessly biased.

He might not have been familiar with the helicopter's top speed. So what?
Presumably he could read the airspeed indicator. And yet, he gets the speed wrong in his recollection. And if he got the speed of the helicopter was wrong, then why on earth should we trust his estimate of the speed of the UFO?
 
The detailed description of the craft by the pilots and ground witnesses is there in the accounts from the beginning.
What do you regard as "the beginning"? Especially since the ground witnesses didn't come forward until years after the incident.

You don't get detail of structure like that from seeing a blinding meteor.
You're right. But you might get it from post-incident imaginings and false memories, or fantastical embellishment of the story to make it sound more impressive.
 
Here's another ground eyewitness account of this ufo. There are some more accounts in the comments..

http://therustbeltchronicles.com/44-years-later-the-coynehelicopter-ufo-incident-in-mansfield-ohio/
That's actually a very interesting insight into the way the UFO believer community works.

It's interesting because, as far as I can tell, several of the brief replies on that page - made in 2013, by the way, which is 40 years after the event - have managed to work their way into the general UFO believer network, so that now a lot of believer sites quote those few-paragraph posts as if they are established fact and as if they support the original story of an alien craft. The people commenting there have never, as far as I can tell, been formally interviewed by anybody - not by official investigators, not even by self-styled UFO "investigators".

As we get further and further away from contemporaneous accounts, accounts are likely to become less trustworthy - especially if there is wide publicity in the meantime. This is because some people inevitably want to jump on the bandwagon for their 15 minutes of fame, and if some of them have to tell a few lies to cash in on some notoriety, then they are happy to do so.
 
If he didn't know what speed he was doing (for whatever reason) then how would he have any idea what speed the "UFO" was going at?

Where did he say he didn't know what speed he was doing? Quote that part.

Nope: I'm saying that - lacking definitive confirmation either way (and the dispute over their location) - there's no reason to assume that they were in fact there.

Yeah..that's a slippery slope. Going that way there's also no reason to assume anyone in the account was anywhere and it was all made up. That's what that logic get's you---a paranoid life in a world of lies and hoaxes perpetrated by secret conspiracies.

Ah, I see. You acknowledge that ONE guy (out of four) got something wrong but... what? The other three are infallible?
We know for a fact that at least part of one person's testimony is flawed - so should we assume that he was the ONLY one that got something wrong?

Being wrong on some technical data is one thing. Being wrong about what happened right in front of you is entirely different. There is no reason to assume any of the accounts are mistaken because one pilot didn't get the top speed of his helicopter exactly right.

You either accept everything as stated or you check and question everything. YOU personally are essentially doing the former whereas I (and James and...) are doing the latter. Ergo the confirmation bias is entirely yours.

You aren't questioning everything. You aren't questioning the pilots' claim they encountered some weird lights that night, or that Jez saw a white light, or that the helicopter rose instead of descending, etc. No..you are cherrypicking the things that support a meteor interpretation, and ruling out the things that conflict with it. That's confirmation bias, as I already explained.
 
Describes it as a craft with a white spotlight "moving over the top of us" and a red leading light.
You mean something like this?

Leonid_Meteor.jpg


That's not a meteor, which would only be one white blinding flash.
Oh really?

It can only be one white blinding flash?

You sure about that, MR? Somehow, I don't think you bothered to check first.

Meteor showers are one of nature’s most brilliant spectacles, each one bringing a unique experience for stargazers, including meteors glowing in a rainbow of colors.

[...]

If seen out of the corner of your eye, a meteor may appear to give off a flash of white light, similar to the way stars appear. However, meteors can appear in a variety of colors if viewing conditions are clear or if they are captured in a photograph.

“The color of light that the meteors produce depends on their chemical composition,” AccuWeather Meteorologist Dave Samuhel said.

“Different chemicals in the meteors produce different colors as they burn up while entering the Earth’s atmosphere,” Samuhel said.

For example, meteors made from primarily calcium will give off a purple or violet color, while those made out of magnesium will appear to have a green or teal color.

What a meteor is made out of is not the only factor that determines the color that it appears. The speed at which the meteor enters the Earth’s atmosphere can also affect the color.

The faster a meteor moves, the more intense the color may appear, according to the American Meteorological Society (AMS).

“Among fainter objects, it seems to be reported that slow meteors are red or orange, while fast meteors frequently have a blue color,” the AMS said.

The Geminid Meteor Shower, one of the best meteor showers of the year, is a shower known for producing intensely colored meteors, Samuhel said. The Geminids peak in December.

The most common colors for this specific meteor shower are yellow, orange and sometimes green.

The Perseid Meteor Shower, another popular meteor shower that occurs every August, is also known for producing shooting stars that give off vivid colors.

Now, the pilots saw this light in October, 1973? The 18th of October, yes?

What was happening in the sky in the October of 1973?

Let's see.. (scroll down to the last page of the link)

On the 12th of October, 1973, saw the beginning of Arietid meteor shower.

And between the 18th and 23rd of October, 1973, was the Orionid meteor shower.

That photo I linked above, by the way? Is from the Orionid meteor shower.. See the colours.

Funny that, huh?
 
Let's strip out some of the later elaboration and concentrate on the report signed by all 4 crew members on the helicopter, 1 month after the incident:

1. On 18 October 1973 at 2305 hours in the vicinity of Mansfield, Ohio,Army Helicopter 68-15444 assigned to Cleveland USARFFAC encountered a near midair collision with a unidentified flying object. Four crewmembers assigned to the Cleveland USARFFAC for flying proficiency were on AFTP status when this incident occurred. The flight crew assigned was CPT Lawrence J. Coyne, Pilot in Command, 1LT Arrigo Jozzi, Copilot, SSG Robert Yanacsek, Crew Chief, SSG John Healey,Flight Medio,All the above personnel are member of the 316th MED DET(HEL AMB). a tenant reserve unit of the Cleveland USARFFAC.

2. The reported incident happened as follows: Army Helicopter 68-15444 was returning from Columbus, Ohio to Cleveland, Ohio and at 2305 hours east, south east of Mansfield Airport in the vicinity of Mansfield, Ohio while flying at an altitude of 2500 feet and on a heading of 030 degrees...
Note that the 2500 feet is the height above sea level, not the height above the ground.

... SSG Yanacsek observed a red light on the east horizon,90 degrees to the flight path of the helicopter. Approximately 30 seconds later, SSG Yanacsek indicated the object was converging on the helicopter at the same altitude at a airspeed in excess of 600 knots and on a midair collision heading.
We have a red light on the east horizon, which could be just about anything.

Then we have a some kind of red light (?) approaching the helicopter very quickly.

Cpt Coyne observed the converging object, took over the controls of the aircraft and initiated a power descent from 2500 feet to 1700 feet to avoid impact with the object.
Cpt Coyne dives the helicopter. It seems that all the crew expects a collision. There is no collision, needless to say.

A radio call was initiated to Mansfield Tower who acknowledged the helicopter and was asked by CPT Coyne if there
were any high performance aircraft flying in the vicinity of Mansfield Airport however there was no response received from the tower.
This is after the altitude has decreased due to Coyne's "evasive action". And, as later attested by Coyne himself to Klass, the lack of radio communication is easily explained by the low altitude of the helicopter at this time.

The crew expected impact from the object instead, the object was observed to hesitate momentarily over the helicopter and then slowly continued on a westerly course accelerating at a high rate of speed, clear west of Mansfield Airport then turn 45 degree heading to the Northwest.
This needs further consideration. But worth thinking about: how long is a "momentary" hesitation of the "object"? This seems to be inconsistent with Coyne's much later account of the helicopter being pulled upwards towards the "object" for some time in a beam of green light.

Then we have an observation of the object "continuing on a westerly course". Did it actually stop, or was it always moving east to west, the whole time? When, exactly, was it observed to "accelerate", and what was the helicopter doing at that time, exactly? How far away was the object when the "acceleration" and the "turning" was observed by the crew?

Cpt Coyne indicated the altimeter read a 1000 fpm climb and read 3500 feet with the collective in the full down position. The aircraft was returned to 2500 feet by CPT Coyne and flown back to Cleveland, Ohio.
Klass suggests that Coyne was subconsciously aware of how close the ground he was after diving the helicopter, and that Coyne perhaps unconsciously pulled back on the controls, making the helicopter climb to 3500 feet.

---
When we break it down like this, there's not much that needs explaining.
 
Last edited:
They say they were. We only have their statements about where they were and what they saw, and Klass's investigation revealed that some of those statements can't be trusted.

Funny since another investigator at first doubted the ground witness account until they started confirming some things they couldn' have possibly known. See that video again.

But wait a minute! You always say we ought to assume that people don't have agendas and don't make stuff up unless there is proof to the contrary, right? So, where's your evidence that Klass had "an agenda" on this case? According to what you preach, we should accept that Klass was upright and honest throughout, unless something shows that was not the case.

Why do you have these double standards - one for your "witnesses" and one for the "skeptics"?

So all these eyewitnesses had an agenda of believing in ufos, and lying to confirm that, while Klass had no agenda at all. No..he only spent years going around trying to debunk every anomaly ever reported in the news. He was a known uberskeptic on a crusade of disproving ufos in any way he could. It was like a religious mission for him. He even dug up dirt on people who believed in ufos and tried to smear their reputations. Why don't you do some research on the kind of man he was? You seem to think he was some scientific genius. He wasn't. He was a fanatic out to prove his anti-ufo worldview, which is reminicent of somebody I know.

You are very certain about everything. A meteor can only be a blinding white flash. No other possiblities. How do you know this?

You can observe probably dozens of meteors on Youtube. Almost always they are a streak with a blinding white flash. Not a hovering cigar shape with a white light and a red leading light and a green beam coming out from its underside.

Presumably he could read the airspeed indicator. And yet, he gets the speed wrong in his recollection. And if he got the speed of the helicopter was wrong, then why on earth should we trust his estimate of the speed of the UFO?

Where did he get the running speed of his helicopter wrong? As far as I know it was only the top speed that he got wrong.
 
Last edited:
Where did he say he didn't know what speed he was doing? Quote that part.
Did you not notice the (multiply-quoted) "twice the speed of his Huey"?
Can you not parse that 500 knots is twice the (claimed) speed of the UH-1? (For reference that would mean the Huey was doing 250 knots).

Being wrong on some technical data is one thing. Being wrong about what happened right in front of you is entirely different.
Ah I understand.
The speed he was doing in the helicopter he was occupying/ flying at the time was "technical data" rather than something "happening right in front of him". Got it.

There is no reason to assume any of the accounts are mistaken because one pilot didn't get the top speed of his helicopter exactly right.
If a pilot (presumably trained and privy to the technical and performance details of his aircraft) doesn't know what speed he's doing (especially if that claimed speed is [supposedly] twice the absolute maximum the aircraft is rated for) then how reliable is the rest of his story going to be?

You aren't questioning everything. You aren't questioning the pilots' claim they encountered some weird lights that night, or that Jez saw a white light, or that the helicopter rose instead of descending, etc.
Oh, wrong.

No..you are cherrypicking the things that support a meteor interpretation
Considering that I haven't even used the word "meteor" then I wonder who you think you're replying to?
 
Did you not notice the (multiply-quoted) "twice the speed of his Huey"?
Can you not parse that 500 knots is twice the (claimed) speed of the UH-1? (For reference that would mean the Huey was doing 250 knots).

Hmmm...good point. Still a bit of a trifle. How fast do you think a meteor moves thru the sky? 300 knots? 500 knots? 1000 knots?

If a pilot (presumably trained and privy to the technical and performance details of his aircraft) doesn't know what speed he's doing (especially if that claimed speed is [supposedly] twice the absolute maximum the aircraft is rated for) then how reliable is the rest of his story going to be?

That's a good question. How does one measure the delibitating effects of getting a speed wrong on one's ability to see lights, discern shapes, ascertain an objects flight directions, and distinguish colors?
 
Last edited:
It's also worth looking at a near-contemporaneous media report, linked above by Magical Realist. This is from the Nov. 4, 1973, edition of the Mansfield News Journal.

Notice that it's based entirely on what Coyne had to say - i.e. it's one person's account.

[Coyne] said a check turned up that none of the unit's F-100 Super Saber Jets were in the air when the UFO appeared. Coyne said when he first encountered the UFO, his helicopter was cruising at 2,500 feet. He had the controls set for a 20-degree dive, but the craft climbed to 3,500 feet with no power.

I had made no attempt to pull up," he said. "There was no noise or turbulence, either."

Coyne said a red light appeared on the eastern horizon, and was first spotted by his crew chief, Sgt. Robert Yanacsek.

"The light was traveling in excess of 600 knots," Coyne said. "It came from the horizon to our aircraft in about 10 seconds. We were on a collision course."

The pilot said he put his helicopter into a dive.

"At 1,700 feet I braced myself for the impact with the other craft," he said. "It was coming from our right side. I was scared. There had been so little time to respond. The thing was terrifically fast."

There was no crash.
This is all consistent with the report discussed above. The following part is new:

"We looked up and saw it stopped right over us," Coyne said. "It had a big, gray metallic-looking hull about 60 feet long." "It was shaped like an airfoil or a streamlined fat cigar. There was a red light on the front. The leading edge glowed red a short distance back from the nose. There was a center dome. A green light at the rear reflected on the hull."

Coyne said the green light swiveled like a spotlight and beamed through the canopy of his craft, bathing the cabin in green light. He said as he and members of the crew stared at the craft his helicopter began to climb without his guidance.
Note that this is Coyne's story some time after all four of the crew signed the report I looked at above. In that report, there is no mention of any "big, gray metallic-looking" object "shaped like an airfoil or a streamlined fat cigar", even though such details would have been very relevant to include in the official report. There's also no mention of any light at all from the object in the initial report, other than a red light that approached the helicopter. Yet now, suddenly, we have red, and white and green lights, plus other details of what is now described as a "hull".

Why is that?

---

Here's a much later account (2003) from Jezzi, another of the helicopter crew. This is much less problematic than Coyne's accounts.

It was about 11 p.m. on Oct. 18, 1973, when an Army Reserve helicopter came perilously close to colliding with an unidentified flying object. Arrigo "Rick" Jezzi, 56, who now lives in Cincinnati, was flying the Huey helicopter that night. Three decades later, he is still not sure what happened. ....
In other words, Jezzi isn't saying this was an alien spaceship.

"Capt. Larry Coyne was the pilot," Jezzi said. "I was in the left seat, actually flying the Huey at the time. We were near Mansfield flying at 2,500 to 3,000 feet."

John Healey and Robert Yanacsek were in the back of the Huey, near a cargo door with a Plexiglas window.

"One of the guys in the back reported a red light. He said it looked like an aircraft light on the right horizon," Jezzi said. "I couldn't see it."

Jezzi was flying from the left seat. On the other side of the Huey there was a 12-foot section of fuselage between the side window and the cargo doors. He figures the red light was in his blind spot.
The original report says it was Yanascek who reported the "red light". And note that he said it looked like an aircraft. Note also that Jezzi didn't see it.

"Then I heard 'I think its coming toward us'," Jezzi said. "The next thing I knew Larry took control of the throttle. We went into a maneuver, a controlled free fall. We dropped about 2,000 feet."

Jezzi said if Coyne had not made the drastic maneuver there would have been a collision

"It took just a couple of seconds," Jezzi said. "I remember looking up through the ceiling and I saw a white light moving over top of us. I followed it to the left horizon where it disappeared.
Jezzi doesn't mention a red light, or a green light, or a metal hull, or anything like that. He only mentions a white light moving above the helicopter.

Jezzi isn't sure what he saw. It was like no aircraft he'd ever seen. He guessed it was traveling at least 500 knots, twice the speed of his Huey
Jezzi gets the speed of his helicopter wrong, and he is also trying to judge the speed of the object from a brief glance upwards - and he is doing this some time after the event.

"Red navigational lights aren't located in the front of an aircraft," he said. "That's what was moving toward us. I don't know what it was."
Notice that Jezzi never says he saw a red light himself. He is relying on what his crewmates said about a red light.

"It caused a lot of hullabaloo," Jezzi said. "The first thing I thought was those Commie bastards. What are they up to."

The next morning two of the other crew members, while being questioned about the incident, sketched drawings of the cigar-shaped craft they observed.

"They both came up with similar drawings," Jezzi said.
I'd like to see these drawings from "the next morning". I wonder where they are?

The magnetic compass in the Huey never worked right after the incident and had to be replaced.
There is evidence that the compass wasn't working right long before this UFO incident.
---

What did Jezzi see? It doesn't actually amount to much, based on his account. All we really have from him is a white light passing overhead.
 
What was happening in the sky in the October of 1973?
Also worth mentioning was what was happening in local society in Ohio in October of 1973. There was actually a UFO craze going on at the time - so much so that somebody declared it "UFO month" or some such.

Of course, MR will say this is because the aliens decided to visit a lot that month, so obviously there would be a lot of sightings.

In general, around this time, the US was in the grip of something of a UFO mania.
 
What do you regard as "the beginning"? Especially since the ground witnesses didn't come forward until years after the incident.

The accounts obtained for the local papers. Typically these are taken within days of the event. There's also the accounts collected by Hynek. Do we have access to these?

You're right. But you might get it from post-incident imaginings and false memories, or fantastical embellishment of the story to make it sound more impressive.

Oh that's right. Your the one who's ready to write off the human ability to remember just to keep from believing in ufos. If I remember correctly that is. Maybe it's just a false memory of mine. Shucks.
 
Hmmm...good point. Still a bit of a trifle.
Exactly. A mere trifle. I mean, how serious is a perception error that makes the helicopter out to be doing twice it's maximum speed?

That's a good question. How does one measure the delibitating effects of getting a speed wrong on one's ability to see lights, discern shapes, ascertain an objects flight directions, and distinguish colors?
Quite.
He got his own speed impossibly wrong - which means that he wasn't perceiving things correctly. Sort of casts doubt on his entire testimony....
 
Exactly. A mere trifle. I mean, how serious is a perception error that makes the helicopter out to be doing twice it's maximum speed?


Quite.
He got his own speed impossibly wrong - which means that he wasn't perceiving things correctly. Sort of casts doubt on his entire testimony....

Wow..he was hallucinating and yet still flying his helicopter thru the night sky. Must be a miracle.
 
Also worth mentioning was what was happening in local society in Ohio in October of 1973. There was actually a UFO craze going on at the time - so much so that somebody declared it "UFO month" or some such.

Right..because who would ever suspect a ufo was actually there during a month long flap of ufo sightings in Ohio in 1973.
 
I'm repeating this point because I want an answer to it.

Klass apparently relies on the old meteor explanation quite regularly. The problem is something like that would be seen for hundreds of miles in cities all across Ohio. Yet no mention is ever made of such an event in any of the papers the next day. Why is that James?
 
Klass suggests that Coyne was subconsciously aware of how close the ground he was after diving the helicopter, and that Coyne perhaps unconsciously pulled back on the controls, making the helicopter climb to 3500 feet.

Wow..That's some fancy sounding psychobabble there. Klass must've had a degree in psychology or something!:rolleyes:
 
Note that this is Coyne's story some time after all four of the crew signed the report I looked at above. In that report, there is no mention of any "big, gray metallic-looking" object "shaped like an airfoil or a streamlined fat cigar", even though such details would have been very relevant to include in the official report. There's also no mention of any light at all from the object in the initial report, other than a red light that approached the helicopter. Yet now, suddenly, we have red, and white and green lights, plus other details of what is now described as a "hull".

Yet here we have a report of three of the pilots agreeing on the shape and structure of the craft:

"Coyne, Healey, and Yanacsek agree that a cigar-shaped, slightly domed object substended an angle of nearly the width of the front windshield. A featureless, gray, metallic-looking structure was precisely delineated against the background stars. Yanacsek reported “a suggestion of windows” along the top dome section. The red light emanated from the bow, a white light became visible at a slightly indented stern, and then, from aft/below, a green ‘pyramid shaped” beam equated to a directional spotlight became visible. The green beam passed upward over the helicopter nose, swung up through the windshield, continued upward and entered the tinted upper window panels."

This also fits with the drawing made with the help of Coyne and Yanacsek the next day:

coynedrawing.jpg


I'd like to see these drawings from "the next morning". I wonder where they are?

Right here:


http://www.thelivingmoon.com/49ufo_files/03files2/1973_Lawrence_Coyne_UFO_Helicopter_Case.html
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist:

The accounts obtained for the local papers. Typically these are taken within days of the event. There's also the accounts collected by Hynek. Do we have access to these?
This is your case. Haven't you investigated it? Why is it that I'm the one digging up all the primary materials?

I haven't seen anything from Hynek. If you have it, present it.

Oh that's right. Your the one who's ready to write off the human ability to remember just to keep from believing in ufos.
Human memory is very fallible. That's a scientifically established fact, whether you like it or not.

If I remember correctly that is.
It seems you don't remember previous information presented to you very well. Which kind of proves my point, doesn't it?

Right..because who would ever suspect a ufo was actually there during a month long flap of ufo sightings in Ohio in 1973.
Indeed. Who would suspect that people would see a UFO, when UFOs were in vogue at the time and everybody wanted to see one?

Klass apparently relies on the old meteor explanation quite regularly. The problem is something like that would be seen for hundreds of miles in cities all across Ohio.
Please quote a source that supports your claim.

By the way, please don't get the impression that I'm saying it was a meteor. I'm just reporting on Klass's opinion, there. Klass conducted a thorough investigation at the time. I was not there. And neither were you, of course.

Wow..That's some fancy sounding psychobabble there. Klass must've had a degree in psychology or something!:rolleyes:
Perhaps. Have you checked?

(Edit to add: I checked. Klass had a degree in science. His main qualification was in electrical engineering. However, he was also a journalist and, of course, a noted UFO investigator.)

Yet here we have a report of three of the pilots agreeing on the shape and structure of the craft:

"Coyne, Healey, and Yanacsek agree that a cigar-shaped, slightly domed object substended an angle of nearly the width of the front windshield. A featureless, gray, metallic-looking structure was precisely delineated against the background stars. Yanacsek reported “a suggestion of windows” along the top dome section. The red light emanated from the bow, a white light became visible at a slightly indented stern, and then, from aft/below, a green ‘pyramid shaped” beam equated to a directional spotlight became visible. The green beam passed upward over the helicopter nose, swung up through the windshield, continued upward and entered the tinted upper window panels."
This appears nowhere in the link you included in your post. Please post the correct reference.

When did they all agree on the cigar-shaped, domed object etc., and to whom?

We have to be careful not to smoosh together different accounts of the incident. To me, it looks like Jezzi's accounts don't support any of this stuff about cigar-shaped objects. And I see very little in the way of direct quotes from Yanascek or Healey. Mostly it's Coyne, and we know that Coyne made money shopping his story around.

This also fits with the drawing made with the help of Coyne and Yanacsek the next day
Please quote a source that verifies that Yanascek collaborated in making that drawing.
 
Back
Top