Roswell UFOs

Roswell – Blanchard

Tags: 1947, Air Force, Fort Worth, Roswell
Posted in Uncategorized on January 11th, 2008 by RoswellUFOs.com

When a Leave is not a Leave: Col. Blanchard and the Roswell Timeline
by Kevin D. Randle

(IUR, International UFO Reporter, July/August 1994, Volume 19, Number 4.
Copyright 1994 by the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, 2457 West
Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659, published bimonthly with a
subscription rate of $25/yr.)

In the complex story that comprises the Roswell incident, side
issues sometimes attain a momentary importance. For example, Gerald
Anderson, who claimed to have seen a crashed saucer on the Plains of San
Agustin in early July 1947, submitted a phone bill which purported to
document the length of a conversation with me. The length of the call in
and of itself was trivial. It became significant only when it became
apparent that the bill had been doctored. Without that bill and
Anderson’s subsequent admission that he had tampered with it, we might
still be debating the validity of his story. It revealed something
critical to our understanding of Anderson’ s testimony and its place in
the larger scheme of things. A discussion of the matter appears in IUR,
July/August 1992.

A new question, seemingly trivial but in fact important,
concerns the time Col. William Blanchard, commanding officer of the
509th Bomb Group, went on leave in July 1947. In his recent monograph
Roswell in Perspective (published by the Fund for UFO Research, Box 277,
Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712), Karl T. Pflock suggests that Blanchard
began his leave on July 9, 1947, instead of July 8, as Donald R. Schmitt
and I have insisted. Pflock writes, “According to the 509th’s
headquarters morning report and a tiny Associated Press story in the
July 10 Albuquerque Journal, the ninth (not the eighth) was the day he
began ‘a three week leave in Santa Fe and Colorado.’ . . . [H]e was on
his way north on a long planned vacation.”

Pflock continues:

Taken together, these admittedly fragmentary and in some part
questionable bits of testimony and documentation point to a delay
before the 509th was instructed to treat the Brazel discovery as a
sensitive matter. They also suggest Blanchard may have personally
conveyed this guidance to those in the field, perhaps as he was on
his way north on a long-planned vacation – although some have
contended he headed somewhere else entirely.

It appears that Pflock has misunderstood the significance of
Blanchard’s leave and the timing of the events. In fact, when examined
carefully, it becomes clear that the timing actually reinforces the
theory that the 509th was involved in the situation before rancher Mac
Brazel arrived in Roswell with the box of debris on July 6.

The first part of Pflock’s analysis can be resolved without
debate, varied interpretation of eyewitness testimony, or rancor. We can
review the situation and draw a valid conclusion about it based on all
the documentation currently available.

First, we have the testimony of Lt. Col. Joseph Briley.
(According to the unit history, Briley became the Operations Officer in
the middle of July. Prior to that he had been a squadron commander.)
Briley asserts Blanchard had gone to the crash site. Available
information indicates that this visit was made on July 8 and that
Blanchard’s leave began on July 8. The leave was actually a cover for
Blanchard’s activities revolving around the crash.

But Pflock attempts to refute this idea, drawing on Robert
Shirkey’s testimony:

It is entirely possible, even likely, Blanchard went to the debris
field to survey the situation personally. However, reliable
testimony suggests he did not do so on the afternoon of July 8.
First, according to Robert Shirkey, about mid-afternoon that day
he was with Blanchard in the Roswell AAF [Army Air Force]
operations building, where the colonel personally was overseeing
the dispatch of the B-29 which took Jesse Marcel and some of the
debris to Fort Worth. Second, Walter Haut vividly recalls
Blanchard['s] colorfully complaining to him that same afternoon
about not being able to place outside telephone calls because the
base switchboard was tied up with inquiries about the flying
saucer.

While this is interesting, it is not especially significant.
According to other testimony, the debris put on the aircraft arrived in
Fort Worth, Texas, about 4 p.m. local time, or 3 p.m. Roswell time.
Newspaper articles and testimony from J. Bond Johnson suggest the debris
was in Eighth Air Force Commander Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey’s office about
that time. It means, simply, that Blanchard was on the base at Roswell
until the flight’s departure, about 1:30 p.m. Roswell time, and then
left on his leave. There is nothing contradictory about this, and it
allows for both points to be correct.

Second, as Pflock suggests, the morning reports show that
Blanchard was present for duty on July 8 but had signed out on leave
before the morning report was created on July 9. These documents are
available from the Army in St. Louis, and I recovered a complete set of
the headquarters morning reports (which were indirectly supplied to
Pflock) from June 1 to July 31, 1947, through the Freedom of Information
Act.

This, too, does not contradict the proposition that Blanchard
went on leave on July 8. If Blanchard signed out on leave in the
afternoon of July 8, then the morning report would show him present on
the eighth and gone on the ninth – which is exactly what it does show.

The newspaper article Pflock quotes is interesting but probably
irrelevant. It is, after all, a newspaper article, and it shows, again,
that Blanchard was gone on the ninth. It does not tell us when he signed
out from the base.

The critical piece of evidence is Special Order Number 9, issued
by Headquarters, 509th Bomb Group, and dated July 8, 1947. It says,
“Pursuant to the authority contained in Hqs. 8th Air Force TWX number A1
1593 6 July 1947, the undersigned hereby assumes control of the Roswell
Army Air Field, Roswell New Mexico. Effective this date.” It was signed
by Payne Jennings, Lt. Col. A.C. (Air Corps), commanding.

Here is the definitive proof. Jennings assumed command on the
eighth. Therefore Blanchard went on leave on the eighth. If Blanchard
went on leave on the ninth, as Pflock would have us believe, then the
special order would reflect that. Eighth Air Force would not want to
create a situation whereby two commanders were on station at the same
time.

OTHER EVIDENCE

Some other points must be considered. What the Special Order
does is show military interest in the case days before July 8. It shows
that Blanchard’s leave was not long planned because the TWX was sent on
July 6, a Sunday. Had it been a long-planned leave, the TWX would have
been sent earlier. If it was a long-planned leave, there was no reason
to wait until Sunday, July 6, before sending the TWX. That date becomes
important when it is placed in the context of all the activities of that
critical weekend.

In fact. we can see that the military were interested in the
case before Mac Brazel’s arrival. If his arrival had been the reason for
that interest, nothing official would have happened on July 6. Brazel
arrived with debris that was interesting, but if we follow the
conventional wisdom, that is all it was, until Jesse Marcel and the
counter-intelligence agent returned late on July 7. If the headquarters
had waited for their return and for the cursory examination of the
debris on the morning of July 8, then the documentation would have been
dated no earlier than that day. The TWX demonstrates the military were
interested prior to July 8.

The TWX and the Special Order resulted from rumors circulating
in Roswell. Military officials, in both Roswell and Fort Worth, probably
in consultation with Washington, decided that Blanchard had better
monitor the activities. Their problem was, after the story began to
leak, the news media would have noticed Blanchard’s absence. Without
Brazel’s arrival and the rumors spreading through Roswell, there would
have been no reason to cover Blanchard’s absence or to grant him a
leave.

This leads to another point, one not lost on the military
planners. If the story was so important, if it involved a real flying
saucer, would Blanchard leave the base? Surely the commanding officer of
the 509th would not want to be off the base and out of town when the
biggest event of the twentieth century took place, unless his leave
itself was part of the cover-up.

On the other hand, if it was nothing more than a weather
balloon, as the military claimed publicly, then the absence of the
commander wouldn’t matter. Blanchard wouldn’t be expected to cancel his
leave over something so trivial as a crashed weather balloon.

So the TWX on July 6 becomes as important as the Special Order
because it demonstrates what was happening inside the military. They
were responding to the events of the day before. They were preparing for
what was coming. The TWX on July 6 suggests that the military already
knew about the crash on the sixth, and they knew because of what had
been found on the impact site by military officers on July 5.

Let us examine one more aspect of the case. By July 8, when the
press got interested in the Roswell case, the key players had been
removed. Mac Brazel was in military custody, held in the guest house at
the base, according to Maj. Edwin Easley, the 509th Provost Marshal.
Jesse Marcel, the only man mentioned by name in the press release, is no
longer in Roswell but on his way to Fort Worth, or already there and
insulated by Gen. Ramey. And Col. Blanchard? He was on leave, heading to
the north and into Colorado.

Even if we ignore the testimonies of Steve MacKenzie and Jim
Ragsdale, who describe activities on the impact site during the recovery
of the craft and bodies, we can still offer testimony to the 509th’s
involvement prior to the July 8 press announcement. Leo Spear, a
military policeman in Roswell in July 1947, reported hearing other MPs
return to the barracks talking about the crashed flying saucer. Like the
others who had not been used as guards, Spear thought they were making
up the story. But Spear says that when he read about the saucer in the
newspaper (July 8), a day or two after he had heard from his fellow MPs,
he changed his mind.

In other words, he had heard about the crash from the guards
prior to the press release. The release convinced him their stories were
true. This corroborates the reports of those who claim military
involvement on july 5 and supports the idea that the military were
preparing for contingencies on July 6. It suggests they knew a great
deal more much earlier than researchers have believed until recently.

SUPPORT FOR THE NEW TIMELINE

All of this refutes Pflock’s theories about Blanchard’s leave.
Pflock appears to have drawn his conclusions without having reviewed all
the relevant documents or testimonies. It is clear that the military
were active in the Roswell affair on July 5 and that they were planning
for all contingencies on July 6 by, among other things, putting
Blanchard on leave.

What we can do is restructure the timeline based on the
testimony of the participants and underscore the validity of those
changes with existing documentation. The old timeline suggested no
military interest until Mac Brazel arrived. After all, how could the
military begin a recovery before they knew a crash had occurred?

We now know they didn’t. They knew of the crash on July 5 and
commenced recovery operations then. Blanchard’s leave is the key to
understanding this. First we have to ask, why would anyone begin a leave
on a Tuesday afternoon? Or, even if we accept Pflock’s analysis, why
begin on a Wednesday?

Leaves normally start at the close of business on Friday
afternoon, allowing two extra days because of the weekend. With
Blanchard in a high-profile position, he might not have been able to do
that, but surely he would have signed out on Monday morning, not Tuesday
afternoon. The only exception would be an emergency leave, but that
doesn’t seem to have been the case. Nothing in the documentation
indicates that Blanchard was responding to a personal emergency such as
a sick family member. Based on the fragmentary documentation he
produces, Pflock concludes that the leave was routine.

The circumstances and the Special Order No. 9 refute that
notion. They show the military were responding to a critical situation.
Blanchard’s leave was neither routine nor emergency in the normal sense.
Blanchard was being freed to respond to the situation as necessary
without having to worry about awkward questions from reporters. To
summarize: Blanchard began his leave on Tuesday, July 8. It was not long
planned. It was a response to the events of July 5, when the military
recovered a flying saucer just north of Roswell. The situation became
critical when Brazel found the debris field and reported it, not only to
the military officers at the Roswell Army Air Field but also to the
local sheriff and a reporter for a radio station.

——————–

Kevin D. Randle, an IUR contributing editor, is coauthor of The
Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell (1994).

Popularity: 74%

No Comments »