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
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.