<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Roswell UFOs &#187; Fort Worth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.roswellufos.com/archives/tag/fort-worth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.roswellufos.com</link>
	<description>Have you seen a UFO lately?</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 07 Feb 2012 08:25:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>Roswell &#8211; Blanchard</title>
		<link>http://www.roswellufos.com/archives/roswell-blanchard/</link>
		<comments>http://www.roswellufos.com/archives/roswell-blanchard/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Jan 2008 18:48:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>RoswellUFOs.com</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[1947]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Air Force]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fort Worth]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Roswell]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.roswellufos.com/archives/roswell-blanchard/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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 [...]<p>a</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>When a Leave is not a Leave: Col. Blanchard and the <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> Timeline<br />
by Kevin D. Randle</p>
<p>(IUR, International UFO Reporter, July/August 1994, Volume 19, Number 4.<br />
Copyright 1994 by the J. Allen Hynek Center for UFO Studies, 2457 West<br />
Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659, published bimonthly with a<br />
subscription rate of $25/yr.)</p>
<p>In the complex story that comprises the <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> incident, side<br />
issues sometimes attain a momentary importance. For example, Gerald<br />
Anderson, who claimed to have seen a crashed saucer on the Plains of San<br />
Agustin in early July <span class="genmed"><u>1947</u></span>, submitted a phone bill which purported to<br />
document the length of a conversation with me. The length of the call in<br />
and of itself was trivial. It became significant only when it became<br />
apparent that the bill had been doctored. Without that bill and<br />
Anderson&#8217;s subsequent admission that he had tampered with it, we might<br />
still be debating the validity of his story. It revealed something<br />
critical to our understanding of Anderson&#8217; s testimony and its place in<br />
the larger scheme of things. A discussion of the matter appears in IUR,<br />
July/August 1992.</p>
<p>A new question, seemingly trivial but in fact important,<br />
concerns the time Col. William Blanchard, commanding officer of the<br />
509th Bomb Group, went on leave in July <span class="genmed"><u>1947</u></span>. In his recent monograph<br />
<span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> in Perspective (published by the Fund for UFO Research, Box 277,<br />
Mount Rainier, Maryland 20712), Karl T. Pflock suggests that Blanchard<br />
began his leave on July 9, <span class="genmed"><u>1947</u></span>, instead of July 8, as Donald R. Schmitt<br />
and I have insisted. Pflock writes, &#8220;According to the 509th&#8217;s<br />
headquarters morning report and a tiny Associated Press story in the<br />
July 10 Albuquerque Journal, the ninth (not the eighth) was the day he<br />
began &#8216;a three week leave in Santa Fe and Colorado.&#8217; . . . [H]e was on<br />
his way north on a long planned vacation.&#8221;</p>
<p>Pflock continues:</p>
<p>Taken together, these admittedly fragmentary and in some part<br />
questionable bits of testimony and documentation point to a delay<br />
before the 509th was instructed to treat the Brazel discovery as a<br />
sensitive matter. They also suggest Blanchard may have personally<br />
conveyed this guidance to those in the field, perhaps as he was on<br />
his way north on a long-planned vacation &#8211; although some have<br />
contended he headed somewhere else entirely.</p>
<p>It appears that Pflock has misunderstood the significance of<br />
Blanchard&#8217;s leave and the timing of the events. In fact, when examined<br />
carefully, it becomes clear that the timing actually reinforces the<br />
theory that the 509th was involved in the situation before rancher Mac<br />
Brazel arrived in <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> with the box of debris on July 6.</p>
<p>The first part of Pflock&#8217;s analysis can be resolved without<br />
debate, varied interpretation of eyewitness testimony, or rancor. We can<br />
review the situation and draw a valid conclusion about it based on all<br />
the documentation currently available.</p>
<p>First, we have the testimony of Lt. Col. Joseph Briley.<br />
(According to the unit history, Briley became the Operations Officer in<br />
the middle of July. Prior to that he had been a squadron commander.)<br />
Briley asserts Blanchard had gone to the crash site. Available<br />
information indicates that this visit was made on July 8 and that<br />
Blanchard&#8217;s leave began on July 8. The leave was actually a cover for<br />
Blanchard&#8217;s activities revolving around the crash.</p>
<p>But Pflock attempts to refute this idea, drawing on Robert<br />
Shirkey&#8217;s testimony:</p>
<p>It is entirely possible, even likely, Blanchard went to the debris<br />
field to survey the situation personally. However, reliable<br />
testimony suggests he did not do so on the afternoon of July 8.<br />
First, according to Robert Shirkey, about mid-afternoon that day<br />
he was with Blanchard in the <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> AAF [Army <span class="genmed"><u>Air Force</u></span>]<br />
operations building, where the colonel personally was overseeing<br />
the dispatch of the B-29 which took Jesse Marcel and some of the<br />
debris to Fort Worth. Second, Walter Haut vividly recalls<br />
Blanchard['s] colorfully complaining to him that same afternoon<br />
about not being able to place outside telephone calls because the<br />
base switchboard was tied up with inquiries about the flying<br />
saucer.</p>
<p>While this is interesting, it is not especially significant.<br />
According to other testimony, the debris put on the aircraft arrived in<br />
Fort Worth, Texas, about 4 p.m. local time, or 3 p.m. <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> time.<br />
Newspaper articles and testimony from J. Bond Johnson suggest the debris<br />
was in Eighth <span class="genmed"><u>Air Force</u></span> Commander Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey&#8217;s office about<br />
that time. It means, simply, that Blanchard was on the base at <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span><br />
until the flight&#8217;s departure, about 1:30 p.m. <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> time, and then<br />
left on his leave. There is nothing contradictory about this, and it<br />
allows for both points to be correct.</p>
<p>Second, as Pflock suggests, the morning reports show that<br />
Blanchard was present for duty on July 8 but had signed out on leave<br />
before the morning report was created on July 9. These documents are<br />
available from the Army in St. Louis, and I recovered a complete set of<br />
the headquarters morning reports (which were indirectly supplied to<br />
Pflock) from June 1 to July 31, <span class="genmed"><u>1947</u></span>, through the Freedom of Information<br />
Act.</p>
<p>This, too, does not contradict the proposition that Blanchard<br />
went on leave on July 8. If Blanchard signed out on leave in the<br />
afternoon of July 8, then the morning report would show him present on<br />
the eighth and gone on the ninth &#8211; which is exactly what it does show.</p>
<p>The newspaper article Pflock quotes is interesting but probably<br />
irrelevant. It is, after all, a newspaper article, and it shows, again,<br />
that Blanchard was gone on the ninth. It does not tell us when he signed<br />
out from the base.</p>
<p>The critical piece of evidence is Special Order Number 9, issued<br />
by Headquarters, 509th Bomb Group, and dated July 8, <span class="genmed"><u>1947</u></span>. It says,<br />
&#8220;Pursuant to the authority contained in Hqs. 8th <span class="genmed"><u>Air Force</u></span> TWX number A1<br />
1593 6 July <span class="genmed"><u>1947</u></span>, the undersigned hereby assumes control of the <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span><br />
Army Air Field, <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> New Mexico. Effective this date.&#8221; It was signed<br />
by Payne Jennings, Lt. Col. A.C. (Air Corps), commanding.</p>
<p>Here is the definitive proof. Jennings assumed command on the<br />
eighth. Therefore Blanchard went on leave on the eighth. If Blanchard<br />
went on leave on the ninth, as Pflock would have us believe, then the<br />
special order would reflect that. Eighth <span class="genmed"><u>Air Force</u></span> would not want to<br />
create a situation whereby two commanders were on station at the same<br />
time.</p>
<p>OTHER EVIDENCE</p>
<p>Some other points must be considered. What the Special Order<br />
does is show military interest in the case days before July 8. It shows<br />
that Blanchard&#8217;s leave was not long planned because the TWX was sent on<br />
July 6, a Sunday. Had it been a long-planned leave, the TWX would have<br />
been sent earlier. If it was a long-planned leave, there was no reason<br />
to wait until Sunday, July 6, before sending the TWX. That date becomes<br />
important when it is placed in the context of all the activities of that<br />
critical weekend.</p>
<p>In fact. we can see that the military were interested in the<br />
case before Mac Brazel&#8217;s arrival. If his arrival had been the reason for<br />
that interest, nothing official would have happened on July 6. Brazel<br />
arrived with debris that was interesting, but if we follow the<br />
conventional wisdom, that is all it was, until Jesse Marcel and the<br />
counter-intelligence agent returned late on July 7. If the headquarters<br />
had waited for their return and for the cursory examination of the<br />
debris on the morning of July 8, then the documentation would have been<br />
dated no earlier than that day. The TWX demonstrates the military were<br />
interested prior to July 8.</p>
<p>The TWX and the Special Order resulted from rumors circulating<br />
in <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span>. Military officials, in both <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> and Fort Worth, probably<br />
in consultation with <span class="genmed"><u>Washington</u></span>, decided that Blanchard had better<br />
monitor the activities. Their problem was, after the story began to<br />
leak, the news media would have noticed Blanchard&#8217;s absence. Without<br />
Brazel&#8217;s arrival and the rumors spreading through <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span>, there would<br />
have been no reason to cover Blanchard&#8217;s absence or to grant him a<br />
leave.</p>
<p>This leads to another point, one not lost on the military<br />
planners. If the story was so important, if it involved a real flying<br />
saucer, would Blanchard leave the base? Surely the commanding officer of<br />
the 509th would not want to be off the base and out of town when the<br />
biggest event of the twentieth century took place, unless his leave<br />
itself was part of the cover-up.</p>
<p>On the other hand, if it was nothing more than a weather<br />
balloon, as the military claimed publicly, then the absence of the<br />
commander wouldn&#8217;t matter. Blanchard wouldn&#8217;t be expected to cancel his<br />
leave over something so trivial as a crashed weather balloon.</p>
<p>So the TWX on July 6 becomes as important as the Special Order<br />
because it demonstrates what was happening inside the military. They<br />
were responding to the events of the day before. They were preparing for<br />
what was coming. The TWX on July 6 suggests that the military already<br />
knew about the crash on the sixth, and they knew because of what had<br />
been found on the impact site by military officers on July 5.</p>
<p>Let us examine one more aspect of the case. By July 8, when the<br />
press got interested in the <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> case, the key players had been<br />
removed. Mac Brazel was in military custody, held in the guest house at<br />
the base, according to Maj. Edwin Easley, the 509th Provost Marshal.<br />
Jesse Marcel, the only man mentioned by name in the press release, is no<br />
longer in <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> but on his way to Fort Worth, or already there and<br />
insulated by Gen. Ramey. And Col. Blanchard? He was on leave, heading to<br />
the north and into Colorado.</p>
<p>Even if we ignore the testimonies of Steve MacKenzie and Jim<br />
Ragsdale, who describe activities on the impact site during the recovery<br />
of the craft and bodies, we can still offer testimony to the 509th&#8217;s<br />
involvement prior to the July 8 press announcement. Leo Spear, a<br />
military policeman in <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> in July <span class="genmed"><u>1947</u></span>, reported hearing other MPs<br />
return to the barracks talking about the crashed flying saucer. Like the<br />
others who had not been used as guards, Spear thought they were making<br />
up the story. But Spear says that when he read about the saucer in the<br />
newspaper (July 8), a day or two after he had heard from his fellow MPs,<br />
he changed his mind.</p>
<p>In other words, he had heard about the crash from the guards<br />
prior to the press release. The release convinced him their stories were<br />
true. This corroborates the reports of those who claim military<br />
involvement on july 5 and supports the idea that the military were<br />
preparing for contingencies on July 6. It suggests they knew a great<br />
deal more much earlier than researchers have believed until recently.</p>
<p>SUPPORT FOR THE NEW TIMELINE</p>
<p>All of this refutes Pflock&#8217;s theories about Blanchard&#8217;s leave.<br />
Pflock appears to have drawn his conclusions without having reviewed all<br />
the relevant documents or testimonies. It is clear that the military<br />
were active in the <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> affair on July 5 and that they were planning<br />
for all contingencies on July 6 by, among other things, putting<br />
Blanchard on leave.</p>
<p>What we can do is restructure the timeline based on the<br />
testimony of the participants and underscore the validity of those<br />
changes with existing documentation. The old timeline suggested no<br />
military interest until Mac Brazel arrived. After all, how could the<br />
military begin a recovery before they knew a crash had occurred?</p>
<p>We now know they didn&#8217;t. They knew of the crash on July 5 and<br />
commenced recovery operations then. Blanchard&#8217;s leave is the key to<br />
understanding this. First we have to ask, why would anyone begin a leave<br />
on a Tuesday afternoon? Or, even if we accept Pflock&#8217;s analysis, why<br />
begin on a Wednesday?</p>
<p>Leaves normally start at the close of business on Friday<br />
afternoon, allowing two extra days because of the weekend. With<br />
Blanchard in a high-profile position, he might not have been able to do<br />
that, but surely he would have signed out on Monday morning, not Tuesday<br />
afternoon. The only exception would be an emergency leave, but that<br />
doesn&#8217;t seem to have been the case. Nothing in the documentation<br />
indicates that Blanchard was responding to a personal emergency such as<br />
a sick family member. Based on the fragmentary documentation he<br />
produces, Pflock concludes that the leave was routine.</p>
<p>The circumstances and the Special Order No. 9 refute that<br />
notion. They show the military were responding to a critical situation.<br />
Blanchard&#8217;s leave was neither routine nor emergency in the normal sense.<br />
Blanchard was being freed to respond to the situation as necessary<br />
without having to worry about awkward questions from reporters. To<br />
summarize: Blanchard began his leave on Tuesday, July 8. It was not long<br />
planned. It was a response to the events of July 5, when the military<br />
recovered a flying saucer just north of <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span>. The situation became<br />
critical when Brazel found the debris field and reported it, not only to<br />
the military officers at the <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> Army Air Field but also to the<br />
local sheriff and a reporter for a radio station.</p>
<p>&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8212;&#8211;</p>
<p>Kevin D. Randle, an IUR contributing editor, is coauthor of The<br />
Truth About the UFO Crash at <span class="genmed"><u>Roswell</u></span> (1994).</p>
<p>a</p>
<img src="http://www.roswellufos.com/?ak_action=api_record_view&id=7&type=feed" alt="" />]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.roswellufos.com/archives/roswell-blanchard/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.277 seconds -->

