Date:         Sun, 18 Sep 2005 23:24:23 -0500
Reply-To: Discussions about UFOs and research for CURRENT ENCOUNTERS
From: Tom DeMary <t.demary@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject: Re: [SHG] Fort Stockton radar photo

The Fort Stockton incident was confused by a "B-3 Flash" which combined details of two separate and distinct incidents. Apparently, the misinformation from the "flash" is what was adapted into Status Reports 5 & 6. The teletype text on page 1129, Maxwell roll 9, also mixes details from the two incidents.   I think that the information in Status Reports 5 & 6 is a confusion of the incidents which are clearly and uncontradictorily reported in AAF Form 112 Report Nos. 509-79-1 and 509-79-2, which are the basis of Blue Book Case Nos. 1079 and 1080 of 26 March 1952.

These AAF Form reports clearly address and correct the earlier information.  Unless one wants to claim that that the later reports are intended to obsfucate the information in the earlier reports, I can't see that either incident deserves promotion as a UFO report. Previous allegations are based on the initial, confused report in the Blue Book Status Reports.

#1079 is a report of a radar only incident which occurred between Fort Stockton and Pecos at 2030 MST. The radar operator, not Blue Book, judged the target to be a "false echo" of the lead B-50 in the formation. There was no visual sighting of an aircraft at the location of the radar target, and the radar target was motionless on the scope.

#1080 is a report of a radar visual report of an unidentified aircraft with conventional running lights and conventional speed, which moved through and tailed the formation of B-50s are some minutes. It is in reference to this incident that the radar operator earlier reported a high speed approach, but later changed the speed to no greater than that of a conventional fighter. This incident took place over Arizona at 2212 MST.

What does the radar scope photo actually show? (a high contrast reproduction is at the Project Blue Book site, Maxwell roll 9, page 1128 or follow Fran's link). The time on the radar photo is approximately 2:10, which does not match the MST (2030 or 2213) or Zulu (0330 or 0513) times connected with these incidents. The operator reported observing other B-50 aircraft in his formation on the scope, as well as the unidentified targets, yet the scope photo shows only one obvious "blip." This blip, however, appears to be in the center of the scope display, judging from similar photos reproduced in Steiger's Project Blue Book, and not where any target was reported to be. 509-79-1 says that 3 consecutive radar photos accompanied the report, but there is only the one scope photo in Blue Book files. There remains almost nothing to connect the photo on file with incident, except Capt. McClelland's name (the radar operator, not a pilot), scrawled on a card on the radar set.

Tom DeMary

From: Brad Sparks
Subject: Re: [SHG] Fort Stockton radar photo
Comments: To:

I agree -- it's going off my BB UNKs Catalog.  The airborne radar scope was set for only a tiny 2-mile radius, most likely an airborne navigation radar not search and warning.  Some target crossing the 4-mile wide scope is not covering much territory.  The duration was 5 MINUTES.  And it only covered about 5 miles in those 5 minutes which is a relative velocity of only about 60 mph relative to the B-50's uncorrected ground speed of about 318 mph or maybe 378 mph maximum when traveling forward with the B-50. 

When the radar operator first said "speed of closure" was 3 times that of another B-50 you have to realize that a B-50 is not a fighter, not much maneuverability, but in any case it's a RELATIVE "speed of CLOSURE."  Maybe one B-50 could produce a "speed of closure" of about 20 to 60 mph.  It does NOT mean 3 times the speed of a B-50 or 3 x 300 mph = 900 mph. 

Someone on the B-50 freaked out and sent a FLASH Precedence radio report which is something that is only to be done in case of extreme emergency to report imminent attack or outbreak of war against the U.S.