The Coyne Helicopter UFO Encounter: A Critical Examination of Evidence

Introduction

On October 18, 1973, four U.S. Army Reserve helicopter crew members experienced what would become one of the most credible and thoroughly documented UFO encounters in American history. The incident, which occurred near Mansfield, Ohio, involved a close encounter between a UH-1H helicopter and an unidentified object that reportedly approached the aircraft on a collision course, hovered in proximity, and caused several anomalous effects to the helicopter’s systems. The significance of the Coyne helicopter incident stems from the technical competence and credibility of the witnesses, the multiple reported physical effects on the aircraft, and the existence of alleged ground witnesses who independently observed aspects of the encounter. This report critically examines the witness testimony, investigative findings, physical evidence, and alternative explanations for what has become known as the “Coyne Incident.”

The Witnesses and Setting

The four-man crew of the Army Reserve helicopter consisted of:

• Captain Lawrence J. Coyne (36), the aircraft commander with 19 years of flying experience, who also had previously worked as a plainclothesman in the Cleveland Police Department
• First Lieutenant Arrigo “Rick” Jezzi (26), a chemical engineer serving as co-pilot
• Sergeant John Healey (35), a detective in the Intelligence Unit of the Cleveland Police Department serving as flight medic
• Specialist 5 Robert Yanacsek (23), an IBM service representative and the crew chief who had previously served in Vietnam

The incident occurred on a clear, starry night with 15-mile visibility and a temperature of 43°F. There was no moon, providing excellent visibility of stars. The helicopter was cruising at 90 knots at an altitude of 2,500 feet above mean sea level (approximately 1,300-1,400 feet above the terrain) while traveling from Columbus to Cleveland after the crew had completed routine physical examinations.

Chronology of the Encounter

Pre-Encounter Events

The crew left a medical facility in Columbus at approximately 10:00 PM, filed a flight plan, and departed at approximately 10:30 PM. According to their testimony, the flight proceeded normally until they approached the Mansfield area.

Initial Observation

As the helicopter approached Mansfield, Sergeant Healey observed a single red light to the west heading south. This initial sighting was apparently unremarkable enough that Healey did not mention it to the others. A few minutes later, at approximately 11:02 PM, Specialist Yanacsek noticed a single steady red light on the eastern horizon that appeared to be pacing the helicopter.

The Approach

After watching for about a minute, Yanacsek reported the light to Captain Coyne, who instructed him to “keep an eye on it.” Approximately 30 seconds later, Yanacsek announced that the light appeared to be closing on their craft. As Coyne and Yanacsek watched from their seats, Healey got up and stooped in the aisle to observe, while Jezzi’s view was initially obstructed.

The light continued approaching and appeared to be on a collision course. Coyne described the moment in a later interview: “I saw it was coming at us, and I saw we weren’t descending fast enough, so I pushed the cyclic forward to get our nose down, to get 2000 feet per minute, and it still kept coming at us”¹.

Emergency Descent and Radio Contact

Coyne took control from Jezzi, who had been flying the helicopter, and initiated a powered descent of approximately 500 feet per minute, which he later increased to 2,000 feet per minute. Simultaneously, he attempted to contact Mansfield control tower to request information about possible jet traffic in the area.

According to Coyne’s testimony: “I got on the radio, with my heel mike here, and I pressed that. We were tuned into Mansfield and I said, ‘Mansfield, this is Army helicopter 15444: do you have any high-performance aircraft in your area?’”¹.

Coyne reported that after initial radio contact (“This is Mansfield Approach, go ahead Army one-five-triple-four”), the radios malfunctioned on both VHF and UHF frequencies when he attempted to communicate further. This occurred as the unknown object continued to approach.

The Close Encounter

As the helicopter descended to approximately 1,700 feet, the object reportedly decelerated and assumed a hovering position above and in front of the helicopter. Three of the four crew members (Coyne, Healey, and Yanacsek) described seeing a cigar-shaped, gray metallic object that filled the entire front windshield. They reported a red light at the nose, a white light at the tail, and a distinctive green beam emanating from the lower part of the object.

According to Healey’s testimony given the following day (October 19, 1973): “It had a steady red light on the nose; it was cigar-shaped and had a green light shining down from the aft end. It was like a gun-metal gray and it made no noise nor were there any vibrations or air turbulences”¹.

The green beam reportedly swept up over the helicopter’s nose, through the main windshield, and into the upper tinted window panels, bathing the cockpit in green light. Jezzi, however, reported seeing only a white light from the upper windows. The crew consistently reported that they heard no noise and felt no turbulence from the object.

The Ascent and Departure

While the object was still present, Coyne and Jezzi noticed that the altimeter showed the helicopter had climbed to 3,500 feet with a rate of climb of 1,000 feet per minute, despite the collective control still being in the full-down position (which should have caused continued descent). Coyne has maintained that he did not initiate this climb.

After a few seconds of hovering, the object reportedly accelerated and moved off to the west, showing only the white “tail” light. Coyne and Healey reported that the object made a decisive 45° course change to the right, though Jezzi did not observe this course change, and Yanacsek’s view was partially obstructed.

Coyne stated that he gingerly raised the collective, causing the helicopter to climb nearly another 300 feet before he regained positive control. The crew then felt what was described as a slight “bump.” Following this, Coyne descended to the previous cruise altitude of 2,500 feet, and the flight continued to Cleveland without further incident. Notably, radio contact with Akron/Canton was reportedly easily achieved after the object departed.

Post-Encounter Actions

The day following the incident, Captain Coyne went to P.J. Vollmer, Federal Aviation Authority Chief of Operations at Hopkins Field, to inquire about how and where to report the occurrence. According to Vollmer’s later testimony to Dr. J. Allen Hynek:

“I’ll never, all the rest of my life, forget that man [Coyne] coming in here…I have known Coyne for some time, not personally, not even socially, but I personally have an extremely high regard for his integrity and his capability. In a case of this kind, I don’t know anybody that I would believe any more…I could tell from the tremor of his voice, which wasn’t much-that he was shook”¹.

However, Vollmer could not suggest an official agency to which Coyne should report the incident. Consequently, Coyne eventually related the event to his cousin, a reporter for the Cleveland Plain Dealer, resulting in newspaper coverage. Approximately one month after the incident, Coyne filed Operational Hazard reports to officially document the encounter.

Physical Evidence and Aircraft Anomalies

The Coyne incident is notable among UFO cases for the multiple reported physical effects on the helicopter. These include:

Radio Malfunction

All four crew members reported radio communication difficulties during the close approach of the object. Initially, they established contact with Mansfield tower, but subsequent attempts to communicate failed until after the object departed.

Compass Malfunction

In a later interview with investigator Jennie Zeidman, Coyne revealed that the helicopter’s magnetic compass began spinning during the encounter:

“It began spinning when the vehicle, the thing, was in front of us, while it was still coming to us…This [the magnetic compass] just began to spin. Like crazy. It was spinning the next day after we landed. The mechanics came out. The thing was just shot. The compass was useless…The compass was removed because it was completely unserviceable”¹.

Notably, this compass malfunction was not mentioned in earlier interviews or reports, a point that skeptics would later seize upon.

Unexplained Ascent

Perhaps the most puzzling physical effect was the helicopter’s climb from approximately 1,700 feet to 3,500 feet, despite the collective control being in the full-down position. This occurred while the unidentified object was hovering near the helicopter. Coyne has consistently maintained that he did not initiate this climb, and that the helicopter should have been descending at that time.

As Coyne described it: “The collective was bottomed. It wouldn’t go down any farther, and while I was looking at the instruments, the altimeter was going up to 3800…I never touched this [collective] until I noticed the helicopter was at 3500 feet and climbing”¹.

The Ground Witnesses

The credibility of the Coyne incident was potentially enhanced by the later discovery of ground witnesses who allegedly observed aspects of the encounter. According to the report by Jennie Zeidman for the Center for UFO Studies, five apparent ground witnesses to the event were located by UFO researchers Warren Nicholson and William E. Jones¹.

These witnesses reportedly observed the helicopter and the unidentified object from their position on the ground, providing potential independent corroboration of the aerial encounter. However, skeptics have noted that these witnesses did not come forward immediately but only appeared three years later after local newspaper coverage indicated investigators were looking for additional witnesses to the 1973 incident².

Formal Investigations

Center for UFO Studies Investigation

The most comprehensive investigation of the Coyne incident was conducted by Jennie Zeidman for the Center for UFO Studies (CUFOS), directed by Dr. J. Allen Hynek. Zeidman interviewed each crew member separately and together over a period of several years, as well as the purported ground witnesses. Her report, “A Helicopter-UFO Encounter Over Ohio,” was published in March 1979.

Zeidman concluded: “Over the year and a half that I worked with the aircrew, there was never any indication of collusion, hoax, or willful exaggeration. The first taped account of the event (by Sgt. John Healey on October 19, the day following the incident) does not conflict with later interviews with the others; minor discrepancies which appear throughout are as much to be expected as the variations in testimony of witnesses to, say, an automobile accident; they do not affect the final analysis or conclusions drawn in this report”¹.

Army Response

While there appears to have been no formal Army investigation dedicated specifically to the UFO aspects of the incident, the Army Agency for Aviation Safety was reportedly involved in the case. According to skeptical UFO researcher Philip Klass, the deputy commander of this agency, Col. Samuel P. Kalagian, reviewed Klass’s analysis of the case and commented: “I thought your analysis was accomplished in a sound, logical manner”². Kalagian reportedly later requested permission to reprint highlights of Klass’s analysis in the agency’s safety publication, The Army Flier.

Scientific Panel Review

In 1997, the Coyne case was among those presented to a scientific panel of nine physical scientists convened by physicist Dr. Peter Sturrock. According to the panel’s report, they found “reports of this type quite interesting” but added: “Without the existence of any solid physical evidence (such as analysis of the magnetic compass might have provided), it is difficult for a panel composed of physical scientists to draw any conclusions”².

Alternative Explanations and Critiques

The Meteor Hypothesis

The primary conventional explanation proposed for the Coyne incident is that the crew observed a bright meteor or fireball from the Orionid meteor shower, which was near its peak activity on October 18, 1973. This explanation was most notably advanced by Philip Klass, a skeptical UFO investigator and aviation journalist.

The Orionid meteor shower occurs annually between October 2 and November 7, reaching peak activity around October 21³⁴. During this period, meteors from the shower can produce bright fireballs visible in the night sky.

According to Klass, when he initially suggested this explanation to Coyne during an early telephone interview, Coyne reportedly responded: “Well, that would sound like a logical explanation”². However, Coyne’s views apparently changed later, particularly after the case received recognition and awards.

The meteor hypothesis potentially explains several aspects of the sighting:

• The initial appearance as a bright light on the horizon
• The apparent rapid approach
• The red coloration (common in meteors)
• The sudden disappearance

However, this explanation faces significant challenges in accounting for:

• The reported hovering behavior
• The structured, cigar-shaped object observed at close range
• The green beam of light
• The physical effects on the helicopter (compass malfunction, unexplained ascent)
• The reported 45° course change

Radio Malfunction Explanation

Klass proposed that the radio communication difficulties experienced by the crew had a more prosaic explanation. He suggested that at the helicopter’s low altitude during the encounter, it was beyond line-of-sight range to the airports at Cleveland, Columbus, and Akron.

To test this hypothesis, Klass reportedly suggested that Coyne conduct an experiment during his next flight to Columbus-that near Mansfield he descend to the same low altitude and try to make radio contact with these same airports. According to Klass, “Coyne ran such a test and later informed me that he was unable to reach any of the three airports, as I had predicted”².

The Unexplained Ascent

Regarding the mysterious climb from 1,700 to 3,500 feet while the collective was in the down position, Klass suggested that Coyne himself had instinctively acted to prevent the helicopter from crashing into the ground but, in the excitement of the moment, forgot having done so².

Helicopter pilots interviewed about this aspect of the case have noted that a helicopter cannot climb with the collective in the down position unless affected by an extremely powerful updraft. No such atmospheric conditions were reported that night.

Criticism of Witness Testimony Evolution

Skeptics have pointed to certain aspects of the testimony that appeared to evolve over time. Most notably, the spinning compass was not mentioned in early accounts and interviews, including Coyne’s official incident report to his Army superior written on November 23, 1973, approximately a month after the event².

Additionally, according to Klass, when another investigator interviewed co-pilot Jezzi years later, Jezzi stated that the compass had performed erratically prior to the UFO incident, potentially undermining the claim that the compass malfunction was related to the encounter².

Ground Witness Credibility

Klass raised questions about the credibility of the ground witnesses who came forward three years after the incident. He claimed his investigation “showed that their tale was spurious. The helicopter was several miles away from where they claimed they had seen it, and their account sharply conflicted with that of the crew”².

Analysis of Witness Credibility

Several factors contribute to the perceived credibility of the Coyne incident witnesses:

1. Professional backgrounds: All four crew members were professionals with responsibilities requiring reliability and observational skills. Coyne had 19 years of flying experience, and both he and Healey had backgrounds in law enforcement.
2. Physical condition: The crew had just completed medical examinations in Columbus, confirming they were in good health. They consistently denied alcohol consumption, and Healey specifically addressed this point in his testimony: “We had just taken our flight physicals that evening so we were all cold sober and in perfect health-we’d all passed our physicals-so it wasn’t a case of we’d been out drinking or something. You just don’t go near an aircraft when you’ve been drinking”¹.
3. Consistency of testimony: While there were minor variations in their accounts, the core elements of the sighting remained consistent across multiple tellings over years. The first recorded description by Healey on October 19, 1973, aligns with the fundamental details provided in later accounts by all crew members.
4. Character testimonials: P.J. Vollmer, FAA Chief of Operations at Hopkins Field, vouched strongly for Coyne’s integrity and credibility, stating he had “an extremely high regard for his integrity and his capability”¹.
5. Emotional response: Healey’s recorded testimony from October 19 reveals genuine emotional distress, including moments of “restrained desperation and hysterical, almost sobbing laughter”¹, suggesting a sincere reaction to an unusual experience.

However, certain aspects of the testimony development warrant critical consideration:

• The delayed reporting of the compass malfunction
• The evolution of certain details over time
• The potential influence of recognition and validation (the National Enquirer award of $5,000 for “best UFO case of 1973”²) on how the witnesses perceived and reported their experience

Implications and Significance

The Coyne helicopter incident remains significant for several reasons:

1. Credible witnesses: The professional backgrounds and generally consistent testimony of the four crew members set this case apart from many UFO reports.
2. Multiple reported physical effects: Unlike many visual-only UFO sightings, this case involved reported physical effects on the aircraft systems, including radio malfunction, compass malfunction, and the unexplained ascent.
3. Duration: The extended duration of the encounter (estimated at approximately 300 seconds or 5 minutes¹) allowed for detailed observation by multiple witnesses.
4. Potential corroboration: The alleged ground witnesses, despite questions about their credibility, represent potential independent observation of aspects of the encounter.

These factors combined have made the Coyne incident one of the most discussed and analyzed UFO cases in American history. The Center for UFO Studies considers it “the most credible incident in a wave of sightings in 1973”⁵.

Evidence Gaps and Research Opportunities

Several significant evidence gaps remain in the Coyne case that could benefit from further investigation:

1. Technical analysis of aircraft systems: A comprehensive technical analysis of how a UH-1H helicopter could gain altitude with the collective in the down position would help evaluate that aspect of the testimony. Specific consultation with helicopter aerodynamics experts could provide valuable insight.
2. Complete military documentation: While Operational Hazard forms were filed, a complete search for and analysis of all official military documentation related to the incident could reveal additional details or investigations not currently public.
3. Corroborating radar data: A thorough search for any radar data from the Mansfield area from the night of October 18, 1973, could potentially corroborate aspects of the incident.
4. Astronomical analysis: A detailed astronomical analysis of the Orionid meteor activity specific to that time and location could help evaluate the meteor hypothesis more definitively.
5. Electromagnetic effect research: Research into documented cases of electromagnetic interference with helicopter systems could provide context for evaluating the reported compass and radio malfunctions.

Conclusion

The Coyne helicopter incident of October 18, 1973, stands as one of the most compelling UFO cases on record due to the credibility of the witnesses, the multiple reported physical effects, and the detailed nature of the observations. While conventional explanations have been proposed-most notably the meteor hypothesis-they struggle to account for all aspects of the reported encounter, particularly the structured object observed at close range, the hovering behavior, and the physical effects on the helicopter.

At the same time, critical analysis reveals certain evidentiary weaknesses, including the delayed reporting of some details, questions about the ground witnesses’ accounts, and the lack of definitive physical evidence beyond witness testimony.

The case illustrates the challenges inherent in investigating transient aerial phenomena: even with multiple credible witnesses and reported physical effects, reaching definitive conclusions remains difficult without conclusive physical evidence or instrumental recordings. The Coyne incident thus represents both the strengths and limitations of UFO evidence based primarily on witness testimony, even when those witnesses are trained observers.

What distinguishes this case, however, is the professional background of the witnesses, their consistency on core details, and the multiple reported physical effects that challenge simple explanations. These factors ensure that the Coyne helicopter incident remains a significant case in the study of unexplained aerial phenomena, regardless of its ultimate explanation.

⁂

^{6789101112133151415416217181920212223242526272829303132333435363738394041424344454647484950515253545556575859606162636465666768697071727374757677787980818283848586878889}

1. https://cufos.org/PDFs/books/A Helicopter-UFO Encounter Over Ohio.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹ ↩¹² ↩¹³

2. https://cdn.centerforinquiry.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/29/docs/SUN/SUN53.pdf ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶ ↩⁷ ↩⁸ ↩⁹ ↩¹⁰ ↩¹¹

3. https://in-the-sky.org/news.php?id=19731021_10_100 ↩ ↩²

4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orionids ↩ ↩²

5. https://www.ashlandsource.com/2020/10/04/coyne-incident-over-charles-mill-lake-was-most-credible-ufo-sighting-of-1973/ ↩ ↩²

6. https://www.ohiomagazine.com/ohio-life/article/the-case-of-ohio-s-best-documented-ufo ↩

7. https://www.knoxpages.com/2022/04/29/out-of-this-world-coyne-incident-focused-ufo-attention-on-north-central-ohio-in-1973/ ↩

8. https://ia600600.us.archive.org/32/items/492780987-the-ufo-book-encyclopedia-of-the-extraterrestrial-pdfdrive/492780987-The-UFO-Book-Encyclopedia-of-the-Extraterrestrial-PDFDrive.pdf ↩

9. https://abc6onyourside.com/news/local/ohio-ufo-mysteries-presidential-promises-unsolved-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-coyne-incident-roswell-wright-patterson-aliens-disclosure-orbs-drones ↩

10. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/8gf3nj/the_1973_coynemansfield_helicopter_ufo_incident/ ↩

11. https://www.gralienreport.com/ufos/the-coyne-ufo-incident-of-1973/ ↩

12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3NvTlK4wy0 ↩

13. https://cufos.org/PDFs/books/A Helicopter-UFO Encounter Over Ohio.pdf ↩

14. https://in-the-sky.org/newscal.php?year=1973\&month=10\&maxdiff=5 ↩

15. https://cufos.org/PDFs/books/A Helicopter-UFO Encounter Over Ohio.pdf ↩

16. https://www.wmfd.com/article/october-18th-marks-50th-anniversary-of-mansfield-area-ufo-encounter/17797 ↩

17. https://theshermanroom.wordpress.com/2021/05/22/strange-lights-in-the-night-sky/ ↩

18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Lake_Incident ↩

19. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3NvTlK4wy0 ↩

20. https://columbusfreepress.com/article/ohio-against-universe-50th-anniversary-ufo-wave-during-halloween-1973 ↩

21. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11916116/fullcredits/ ↩

22. https://www.thislocallife.com/5-ufo-cases-in-ohio ↩

23. https://richlandcountyhistory.com/2019/09/02/ufos-over-richland-county-1973/ ↩

24. https://ohiomysteries.com/ohio mysteries/1973-the-coyne-helicopter-incident ↩

25. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19660017951/downloads/19660017951.pdf ↩

26. https://www.everand.com/podcast/592915502/The-Mansfield-Coyne-UFO-Incident ↩

27. https://www.capeanncosmos.com/gloucester-400-culture-folio/wonasquam-village-and-the-skywatchers ↩

28. https://openaccess.city.ac.uk/13520/1/Gillespie-Gallery, Hanna (redacted).pdf ↩

29. https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/publication/Chapter_2._Vulnerability_of_marine_turtl.pdf ↩

30. https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1965AJ…..70..581W ↩

31. https://www.newsweek.com/ufo-sightings-encounters-credibility-video-1371313 ↩

32. https://osr.org/blog/kids/charles-mill-lake-ufo-incident/ ↩

33. https://www.wmfd.com/article/october-18th-marks-50th-anniversary-of-mansfield-area-ufo-encounter/17797 ↩

34. https://www.onlyinyourstate.com/state-pride/ohio/ufo-sighting-oh ↩

35. https://skepticalinquirer.org/video/the-ideological-subversion-of-biology-jerry-coyne-and-luana-maroja/ ↩

36. https://spyscape.com/article/alaska-object-isnt-the-only-mysterious-ufo-top-10-sightings ↩

37. https://richlandcountyhistory.com/tag/charles-mill-lake/ ↩

38. https://sgp.fas.org/library/ciaufo.html ↩

39. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ufo-nearcollision-with-army-helicopter-40-years-ago_n_4119987 ↩

40. https://www.buzzsprout.com/236393/episodes/3899021-coyne-incident ↩

41. https://www.defence.gov.au/news-events/news/2023-07-01/long-path-army-career ↩

42. https://www.kidneyresearchuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/CentreforMHKRUK_TheCaseForChange.pdf ↩

43. https://www.usar.army.mil/Publications/ ↩

44. https://apnews.com/general-news-56d45e5966324e7d968e50b4ac94f908 ↩

45. https://iea.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Coyne-Interactive.pdf ↩

46. https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/cornwall-incident-reports-and-lessons-learned-released-under-foi.247938/ ↩

47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526590023000019 ↩

48. https://www.benning.army.mil/Garrison/DHR/content/pdf/ASD-F1 - FOIA Frequently Asked Questions.pdf ↩

49. https://www.ohiomagazine.com/ohio-life/article/the-case-of-ohio-s-best-documented-ufo ↩

50. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Pain-assessment-in-the-patient-unable-to-position-Herr-Coyne/920fff652babda5e4f5d8e2087782735d334bc89 ↩

51. http://www.nicap.org/reports/731018mansfield_report.htm ↩

52. https://www.infinityexplorers.com/the-coyne-incident-credible-ufo-sighting/ ↩

53. https://archive.org/stream/majiall337/CoyneHelicopterIncident_djvu.txt ↩

54. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Investigations_Committee_On_Aerial_Phenomena ↩

55. https://www.thelivingmoon.com/49ufo_files/03files2/1973_Lawrence_Coyne_UFO_Helicopter_Case.html ↩

56. http://www.nicap.org/731018mansfield_dir.htm ↩

57. https://dayton247now.com/news/local/ohio-ufo-mysteries-presidential-promises-unsolved-unidentified-anomalous-phenomena-coyne-incident-roswell-wright-patterson-aliens-disclosure-orbs-drones ↩

58. https://www.podchaser.com/podcasts/podcast-ufo-137490/episodes/audioblog-an-ohio-ufo-case-tha-146604497 ↩

59. https://enigmalabs.io/library/10e25512-d52e-4ea2-97dc-7a93eecd4cd9/data ↩

60. https://science.nasa.gov/solar-system/meteors-meteorites/orionids/ ↩

61. https://www.army.mod.uk/learn-and-explore/equipment/communication-and-surveillance/ ↩

62. https://www.reddit.com/r/stalker/comments/qnbbsr/has_anybody_found_the_compass_in_anomaly_i_know_i/ ↩

63. https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/index.cfm/go/document.information/documentID/10475 ↩

64. http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/OJTA2dev/ojta/c1c/asteroids/meteors/shower_list.html ↩

65. https://www.militaryaerospace.com/communications/article/14169062/helicopters-radios-military ↩

66. https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PRXLife.3.013004 ↩

67. https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366546032/Post-Office-tried-to-convince-independent-IT-witness-that-he-was-wrong-about-Horizon ↩

68. https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1973NASSP.319..183C ↩

69. https://www.armedforcesday.org.uk/find-events/ ↩

70. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjNKTL7Es7A ↩

71. https://www.scribd.com/document/412358885/Horizon-trial-Jason-Coyne-Expert-Report-1 ↩

72. https://merrittsbrookacademy.e-act.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/10/2017/07/SEN-Information-Report.pdf ↩

73. https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/hsdr/MYHT8970 ↩

74. https://www.bgs.org.uk/sites/default/files/content/attachment/2018-05-24/The Assessment of Pain in Older People UK National Guidelines.pdf ↩

75. https://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/Data/Planning Sub/19990517/Agenda/Agenda.pdf ↩

76. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/cer-231-dementia-interventions-final_0.pdf ↩

77. https://www.governmentattic.org/3docs/NPRC_VIP_List_2009.pdf ↩

78. https://www.ashlandsource.com/2020/10/04/coyne-incident-over-charles-mill-lake-was-most-credible-ufo-sighting-of-1973/ ↩

79. https://hpcconnection.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/updated_nonverbalrevisionfinalweb.pdf ↩

80. https://cufos.org/caught-in-a-bubble/ ↩

81. https://clevelandufo.com/?page_id=18 ↩

82. https://www.gralienreport.com/ufos/the-coyne-ufo-incident-of-1973/ ↩

83. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_UFO_Studies ↩

84. https://www.reddit.com/r/UFOs/comments/8gf3nj/the_1973_coynemansfield_helicopter_ufo_incident/ ↩

85. https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1999CoSka..29…77L ↩

86. https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/orionid-meteor-shower-2025-when-where-see-it-uk ↩

87. https://www.caa.co.uk/media/vfybdggv/safetysense22-radiotelephony.pdf ↩

88. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0PdCvlNf9I ↩

89. https://skybrary.aero/sites/default/files/bookshelf/3520.pdf ↩