Hopefully this is not construed as overkill for previewing the Minot AFB case of 1968, but I thought this important to post as an overall approach to studying the case. I'm basically setting the table with an overview of a proposed methodology.
I've chosen to break up the case in sections or parts which is very similar to my approach to the Malmstrom Oscar Flight write up on this blog. I believe that most readers will stay with my presentations if I provide several meaningful posts that describes a given situation in a moderately length article rather than a long drawn out single post which boarders on the perception of a manifesto or novella. Simply, I'm trying to avoid reader fatigue.
The reader needs to keep in mind that this is a simple blog and not the place to park a research paper, nor am I intending to write a research paper. For example, I've not attempted to contact and interview the key players in the Minot sighting because that has already been done by Tom Tulien and others. Those interviews are conveniently available on numerous websites and the appropriate links and excerpts will be cited.
The Minot 1968 case can be broken up into several parts.
1. The missile maintenance team in route to N-07.
2. The missile security teams (FSCs and site security teams).
3. The diverted B-52 component (crew visuals, radar returns, UHF radio issues)
4. The O-07 intrusion.
5. Minot's UFO officer's (LtCol Werlich) investigation.
6. Blue Book's responses and final conclusion.
Each of the above areas may have subsets. These subsets may include data from Minot's base operations, wing security control, input from other launch control facilities and relevant information from the Memo for Records.
Most know that my view of the Malmstrom (Echo and Oscar) interviews conducted by Hastings and Salas was/is highly critical based on the nature of the cases and the major participants and the lack of others who remained in the shadows. The main participants (Figel, Meiwald and Salas) had no credible visual observations and we're left with the reminiscences of phone calls and poor recall of said phone calls some 45 years later. One has official documentation of the event, but the other exists purely in the mind of another individual leaving us to debate it's actual occurrence.
The Minot story is a different animal as there are written accounts based on the AF-117s plus interviews that were conducted years later of the actual eye witnesses. The AF-117s reveal what each participant experienced or perceived to have happened during the early morning hours of 24 October 1968. The witnesses saw something and there is no doubt in that regard, but what did they actually see? The interview statements given some 30-35 years later contain what is to be expected, that is difficult recall in certain areas, yet interesting information in other areas.
So I'll present the case in a multi-part format. How many parts is yet to be determined. I'll have to see how the case progresses.
Hi Tim:
ReplyDeleteI had a lot to learn in researching and presenting the work, so I appreciate that you are willing to take the time and effort to review this case. The details are fairly complex, require a considerable amount of study, and a basic understanding of the military environment where/when the events occurred. I hope you won't mind if I provide suggestions.
For example, following is what i would suggest as a breakdown of the chronology:
1. Observations and report to Oscar FSC Smith by O-6 Target Alignment
Team and Camper Team at 2:15.
2. Observation and report by Oscar FSC Smith at 2:30.
3. Observation by missile maintenance team enroute to N-7 at 2:30.
4. Observations by N-1 LCF missile security teams at 3:08.
5. B-52 air-radar observation (3:52-4:02/4:06:51).
6. B-52 air-visual observation (4:24-4:28/4:30-4:35).
7. The O-7 LF break-in at 4:49.
8. Final ground-visual observations (4:26-5:34).
9. Initial SAC investigations and briefings.
10.Project Blue Book investigation (Werlich).
11.Project Blue Book's analysis and evaluation (Quintanilla).
Notes:
1. The observations by the TAT and Camper team were ignored by the PBB investigation. The WSC summary lists the Camper team as observers but omits the time of the observation. See also: Smith interview and AF-117.
4. The WSC summary incorrectly notes the initial sighting at 3:08. The Base Operations dispatcher's log begins to report N-7 events at 3:00.
5. The final radarscope photo time is 4:06:51, however, the pilot/RAPCON Transcription has the B-52 turning to the cross-wind leg of the traffic pattern at 4:06. See: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/pdf/discrepancies.pdf.
6. Our reconstruction of the B-52 flight path suggests a discrepancy in the B-52 onboard time. See previous document. In his AF-117, Partin notes the time of the air-visual observation as 4:30-4:35 by his pilot chronometer.
8. FSC Bond notes in his AF-117 that the total observation time was 2 hours and 26 minutes (3:08 + 2:26 = 5:34).
Kind regards, Tom
Hi Tim:
DeleteSorry I am still obsessing with the chronology!
It might make sense to combine #2 and #3 as an event in itself. In fact, both observations (along with Smith's recall of the report by the camper team) establish a triangulation of the location of the object. Smith observed the object to the south of his position at an estimated distance of 10 miles; while O'Connor and Isley observed the object due east of their position at 5 miles north of N-7. As they proceeded to N-7 the object appeared to pick up, pace their vehicle, and grow brighter so that by the time they arrived at N-7 the object was south of their position where it remained for about the next hour. It is highly unlikely that the B-52, or any celestial object, could account for this roughly 45 minute-period of the observations.
Re: #4. Perhaps it makes sense to include the observations of personnel at N-7 beginning at 3:00, personnel at N-1 at 3:08, including the later observations of two similar UFOs. O'Connor and Isley arrived at N-7 at about 3:00 (which is also the first entry in the Base Operations dispatchers log), and later, Jablonski and Adams at around 3:30. All reported the UFO in the S-SE until the time that they were notified of the location of the incoming B-52 in the W-NW that would have appeared at about 9000 feet as it cleared the haze and cloud layers (which is also the time when another UFO disappeared from the B-52 radarscope). In other words, both UFOs disappeared from view at the same time. It appears that the UFO pacing the B-52 disappeared from the radarscope just before the B-52 emerged below the cloud layer. According to the transcript this would have been at about 4:02 am. (Note that the cloud layer from 9000-24000 feet extended at least 50 miles to the NW according to Runyon in the transcript, and Smith noted it was completely overcast with no stars observed in his 117). There is discord regarding the length, and time of the last observation among the ground observers at N-7 and Smith. Anywhere from 3:45-4:15 am according to the 117s. In addition, during this period, (3:20-3:25 according to the WSC) two similar UFOs were reported by 12 witnesses; plus, O'Connor, Isley, Bond, Jablonski, and Adams, who do not provide a time for the observation. See page 4 of the 117s; and INVESTIGATION: 5.6. Reports of Two UFOs), and:
"In their AF-117’s, Isley and O’Connor included drawings of a second object southwest of N-7, while the first object remained in the southeast.[34] The time of this observation is not given, although the dispatcher’s log notes at 3:28: “Two are seen now.”[35] In addition, Bond included a drawing of two objects on a course towards each other, in which the second object “was in view for only about three minutes.”[36]" (NARRATIVE: 1. Ground-visual UFO Observations.)
Kind regards, Tom
Hi Tom,
DeleteI'll look closely at your proposed chronology, as at first glance, makes sense.
I trashed my original work up earlier and started with the logical approach, my thinking anyways, by looking at how the night/morning unfolded and the original report called in to BB (Marano's 24 Oct 68 Memo for Record).
I've reviewed the WSC and Base OPs logs, as well as, the transcripts RAPCON and the B-52.
Now I'm going thru the AF-117s, again for the umpteenth time. I'll further look at yours and Klotz's interviews once more.
So in short, I'm still banging away at it and mentally pulling an alert at Minot. :)
Tim
Tim:
DeleteAgain, I fully appreciate the fact that you are willing to take the time to review the case and extend a critical approach and objectivity to the work. I just want to have assumptions challenged and to learn.
Kind regards, tom
Tom,
DeleteRest assured that I am thoroughly going over the the data...inch by inch. This is one of the reasons that I've yet posted any sections of my work as of yet.
I specialized in psychiatric nursing (my second and last career/profession) and based on all of my so-called advanced degrees which research methodology played (still does) an important part, it compels me to be as thorough as I can.
I'm sure that you know that based on my blog's theme that I tend to be skeptical of things, but I'm not a hard ass skeptic (contrary to what others have written) for life experiences or not necessarily black and white...there tends to be a lot of grey area.
I apply a subjective vs objective approach to most things, similar to what I do as a psychiatric nurse. Subjective as to what is told/written by witnesses and objective as to what hard verifiable data is available to corroborate...or not. And I will draw a tentative conclusion, tentative being that some conclusions may be changed based on new data being discovered.
I do have a couple of working hypothesis concerning the Minot case, but I need to work on those for awhile for I may be easily off base. But bare in mind, if I present them it would only be listed as "possibilities" versus hard evidence that contradicts.
As far as my experience with the Minuteman system, that only helps for a portion of the case. The rest has me wishing that I'd done what I really wanted to do, back in the day,... going to navigator training, as that would have been more of value when looking at this case.
Tom, also rest assured that my effort is NOT to be construed as a rebuttal to your work. To the contrary, I want to see if BB's conclusions are plausible or lacking and why for either account. I may well, at the end, present a full or partial rebuttal of the BB investigation...
Best Regards,
Tim
Tom, I appreciate your listing for chronological purposes. Your provided notes are of interests as I've noticed that there should have been more AF-117s completed from the other flight area observers ( or were they accomplished and never made it to the BB files?).
ReplyDeleteBest Regards,
Tim
Dear Tim:
ReplyDeleteYeah. Well, there are many instances in which the investigation should have followed up but did not. It appears as though Werlich never bothered (or unaware of the observations at 2:15-2:30) to interview, at least, the security Camper team at O-6, if not the TAT. Certainly, the TAT would have had to answer to command for abandoning the work at O-6. Where did that report go? One of the more blatant is the missing AF-117s from the observers at Juliet (located 25 miles west of MAFB) and Mike flights (located 30+ miles northwest), which would have positively determined whether the reporters were observing the star Sirius and/or the B-52 during the sighting period (at 3:30 Sirius was SSE at +138 degrees az/+14-15 degrees alt).
See: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/investigation/sirius.php
If the Transcript included the time-period beginning with the B-52 returning to Minot ground control at the 50 nmi radius we would know when they returned, where they were coming from, and where they were prior to 3:44 when the Transcript begins with the B-52 over the runway. A B-52 is constantly under the control of ground radar and every movement is monitored and recorded. A pilot cannot make a change without first notifying the respective ground control.
For instance and comparison see the communications transcripts contained in the “B-52H Aircraft Mishap Report, 4 October 1968” http://www.minotb52ufo.com/archives/5th_bombardment_wing_heavy/b52_stratofortress/b52h_accident_report_4_oct_1968_minot_afb.pdf
[Note: the three transcripts in this document are not in chronological order: Great Falls; Minneapolis; Minot. The proper chronological order is Minneapolis; Great Falls; Minot]. This Transcription of Recorded Conversations begins when the B-52 (FOG 32) is approximately 600 miles east of Minot, under control of Minneapolis, and subsequently Great Falls Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC). It covers a period of time from 0256-0852Z before passing to Minot approach control. The Aircraft Accident Transcription-Minot Approach Control covers the period from 0842-0907Z. The communications span a period of 6 hours, the jargon is accurate, and time references are precise and complete to increments of seconds.
See also, the first several paragraphs in the NARRATIVE section, 2. B-52 Air-radar UFO Observation (3:44-4:02). http://www.minotb52ufo.com/narrative/section-2.php
In addition, see: INVESTIGATION; 5. Reviewing Werlich’s Data and Conclusions; Initial Ground Observations.
http://www.minotb52ufo.com/investigation/section-5.php#w1
The point is that Werlich could have determined the precise locations of the B-52, but for whatever reasons, did not, or chose not to. On the other hand, he states in the BRD (p. 5) that:
AT THE TIME OF THESE EVENTS, A B-52 WAS IN THE LOCAL AREA. THE AIRCRAFT INITIALLY ARRIVED IN THE AREA ON A 50 NAEUTIC MILE RADIUS CLEARANCE WITH A BLOCK ALTITUDE OF FL210 TO FL230 AND BEGAN VARIOUS INSTRUMENT PRACTICE MANEUVERS INCLUDING A VERTICAL “S” PATTERN. THIS TOOK PLACE AT ALMOST THE SAME TIME AS THE FIRST GROUND SIGHTING. What time was this? (BRD p.2): 24 OCT 68-0800Z (0300 CDT) UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 1015Z (CDT 0515).
Werlich establishes that the initial sighting time was 3:00. Why would he ignore Smith; Isley; and O’Connor’s 117s? It appears that the observations began at least 45 minutes before the B-52 returned to Minot control, at which point they would be 50 nmi to the east above 20,000 feet.
cont...
BRD p.8: (5) IN COMPARING THE AIRCRAFT ACTIVITY AND TIMES CONTAINED ON THE RAPCON TAPE RECORDINGS WITH THE BASE OPERATIONS DISPATCHER’S LOG OF GROUND OBSERVATIONS, IT IS ENTIRELY POSSIBLE AND HIGHLY PROBABLE THAT THE INITIAL SIGHTING AND SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITIES OF THE OBJECT WERE IN FACT THE B-52 ACCOMPLISHING UPPER AIRWORK. LATER SIGHTINGS OF BRIGHT LIGHTS AND FLASHING GREEN AND WHITE LIGHTS ACCOMPANIED BY A LOW JET ENGINE SOUND CORRELATES WITH THE B-52 MAKING A VOR PENETRATION, LOW APPROACH AND MISSED APPROACH. PORTIONS OF THE MANEUVER ARE ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE AIRCRAFT LANDING LIGHTS ON. THE HAZE AND LAYERED CLOUD CONDITIONS COULD HAVE DIFFUSED LIGHT SOURCES AND MADE IDENTIFICATION DIFFICULT.
ReplyDeleteSounds good in CAPS, however, the haze and layered cloud conditions existed only above 9,000-24,000 feet. Below this, the air was clear and cool with visibility at 25 miles.
See the last part of: INVESTIGATION; 5. Reviewing Werlich’s Data and Conclusions; Initial Ground Observations. http://www.minotb52ufo.com/investigation/section-5.php#w1
I get the impression that SAC would not allow any of its commissioned officers with SIOP-ESI clearance to provide interviews for a Blue Book investigation. No one had to tell the B-52 crew not to talk, though, Smith’s commander instructed him not to. On the other hand, Maj. Partin filled out a 117 two days after Werlich submitted the BRD (completing his investigation) to Blue Book. Partin was also the officer that went in to Base Ops for a briefing, as requested, immediately after the B-52 landed. It seems reasonable that the Base Commander, Kirchoff (who was principally responsible for all UFO investigation per AFR 200-2) attended, and I suspect that Gen.Nichols attended by phone from CA.
From INVESTIGATION; 2. SAC Investigations; B-52 pilot Debriefing; Endnote10: Later that day, when Werlich first reported the UFO observations to Blue Book he affirmed, “the Base Commander and Major General Nichols of the 15th Air Force were both interested” (Memo, 24 Oct., 1). It is likely that during the UFO events the Base Operations Dispatcher alerted Base Commander Col. Kirchoff, who subsequently notified his superior, Maj. Gen. Edward M. Nichols Jr., Vice Commander of the Fifteenth Air Force, March AFB, CA. In this scenario, Col. Kirchoff and Gen. Nichols may have been monitoring the situation with RAPCON; relayed the order to the B-52 pilots to overfly the stationary UFO; and requested the debriefing following the landing.
Perhaps this is more than you bargained for…
I would be inclined to add a name to:
9. Initial SAC investigations and briefings (Hollingsworth).
It appears as if Werlich was in communication with a Gen. Hollingsworth at SAC/HQ, who, it seems, was a sort of point person for collecting information from Werlich for briefing the SAC Commanders.
For example, during a conversation with Marano:
“Gen Hollingsworth has been given all the information that Col Werlich obtained. Col Werlich said that Gen Hollingsworth was briefing Gen Compton and this briefing was probably going on at the time that Col Werlich was speaking with Lt Marano (time was approx 2 pm, EST, [Thursday] 31 Oct).”
Page 6 at: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/pdf/0012.pdf
Try as we might, we could not locate a Gen. Hollingsworth in SAC Org charts or USAF Rosters (included in the ARCHIVES; SAC section). We even asked Gen. Holland to check his official directory but found no USAF General by that name. Some may wonder whether Werlich was mistakenly referring to the CINCSAC gen. Holloway, though, it seems unlikely that the SAC Commander would be briefing the Vice-Commander on the matter.
Kind regards, Tom
Additional comments by Martin Shough regarding the PBB investigation, or lack thereof, and the radar systems at Minot AFB and Minot Air Force Station (located 16 miles south of the base) available from:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.minotb52ufo.com/radar_analyses.php:
The RAPCON tape transcript contains the following message to the B-52 timed at 0852 CDT by the tower clock (03:52Z): "The UFO is being picked up by the weathers radar also, should be at your 1:00 position 3 mile now." The aircraft responded that they "do not have anything on airborne radar and we are in some pretty thick haze right now and unable to see out that way." The time of this message would be before the 30/180 turnaround onto the TACAN initial approach fix and so prior to the start of the ASB-9 radar episode [B-52 radar detection of the UFO]. The file shows that Lt.Marano at FTD made several attempts to get further information from Col.Werlich about the weather radar but was either rebuffed or ignored. It has not proved possible to find information regarding the characteristics or location of the weather radar involved. Generally one would expect this sort of radar to operate at X-band (similar to the 3 cm airborne radar) or S-band (up to 10 cm). Weather radar is by no means generically inferior to other types of radar, requiring good accuracy and resolution, and most importantly, radar height indication as well.
Another puzzle is a report of a rapid unidentified echo on the B-52 gunnery radar. According to the gunner [Arlie Judd], at some point during the ASB-9 radar episode a target was picked up on the scope of the rearward facing AN/ASG-1gun control radar. It was aft of the aircraft 30 degrees to port of the centre-line (i.e., at about 7 o'clock, behind the left wing) and moved from 1000 to 12,000 yards range in a few seconds (less than 10). It was a "brilliant target". The gunner was impressed by its size and speed, and noted that there was no clutter or other echoes on the scope. Little information is available presently about this radar, but it appears to have been a multilobe tracking radar employing sum-and-difference circuits for ranging and and target following. Probable wavelength would be under 3cm. Azimuth coverage was 320 degrees, 160 degrees left and right of the tail. But there is no reference at all to this incident in the official file and other witnesses have no memory of it.
In addition to the weather radar, there is also uncertainty about the role of ground radars. Col. Werlich states that RAPCON at Minot AFB did not detect the UFO at any time, but he observes that "IFF equipment was operating in the airplane. It’s a fairly good size blip. Every time it sweeps it shows the blip. The object would have been covered by the blip." It is unclear whether he is referring to the surveillance radar or the precision approach GCA radar, or both. The ADC radar south of Minot "do not remember" seeing any unidentified targets says Werlich, but this is a fairly meaningless statement. FTD's requests for more information on this, and on the RAPCON radars, were no more successful than their requests for details of the weather radar report. Werlich's only response is the inaccurate reassertion that only the B-52 bomb-nav radar was involved. This is very unsatisfactory. Werlich himself indicates that he was denied the technical assistance he requested from SAC to further his investigation, and in the context of SAC's sensitivity about some security implications of the incident this is certainly suspicious.
cont....
It has been possible to find the following information on radars operational the the Air Defense Command SAGE [Semi Automated Ground Environment] radar site 16 miles S of Minot in October 1968:
ReplyDeleteFPS-26 Height Finder 2 x 2.5Mw; pw 4.5mS; pps 333-328?; 5.4-5.9GHz.
Made by AVCO. Dual Channel at 2.5 Mw each or one channel at 5Mw. SAC 42A Klystron.
FPS-26A Height Finder 2 x 2.5Mw; pw 4.5mS; pps 333-328? ; 5.4-5.9GHz.
Made by AVCO. Said to be similar to FPS-26 with extra ECCM features.
FPS-27 Air Surveillance 15Mw ; pw 6mS; pps 333; 2322- 2670 MHz.
Made by Westinghouse. Stacked beam system using 10 vertical beams.
Note the "diversity operation" of the height-finders - two transmitters of 2.5MW each are operated in tandem with the pulse repetition rate slightly out of phase and the delayed signals recombined at the receiver to give an effective 5MW peak power.
All these radars were also part of the ADC "Frequency Diversity Radar Program". Frequency diversity means that as well as being slightly delayed, multiple channels are assigned slightly different frequencies - usually about 5% or less - which increases probability of detection by receiving different scattering patterns from a single target. The SNR increases like the square root of the number of channels and the practical range performance similarly. Whether this freq diversity applies to all 10 of the surveillance beams isn't certain. The vertical stack probably also gives the FPS-27 a height-finding capability as well.
Note that the range dimension of the resolution cell, in the surveillance set in particular, is quite poor at 6 microsec., about 0.5NM (0.38NM for the height-finders). No information is available on beam width. The surveillance peak power of 15MWatt converts to a mean power of 30kW, so this is a powerful transmitter designed for long range. The unambiguous range allowed by the interpulse time would be about 240NM.
A target at the altitudes indicated near Minot should have been above the ADC radar horizon out to a range of well over 100 miles if the ADC antenna is about the same height ASL.
In addition see: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/investigation/section-3.php
Judd interview: http://www.minotb52ufo.com/interviews/judd2001/judd2001_pg11.php
Kind regards, Tom
An-other unsubstantiated tidbit….
ReplyDeleteJK: I want to get back in sequence—you had seen some things a few nights previous—
SMITH: Yes. So now we're at this evening and I had gotten off duty and was sitting and talking with the Vice Security Controller on duty and the conversation then gravitated to that— matter of fact, we were sort of anticipating it because things had been working up and we had been seeing more and more activity with these lights. I remember personally talking to the Capsule Crews and so now, this evening we said "look, there's a lot of activity out here is there some way we can get verification of what's going on from the base?" We found out there were no aircraft operating, no helicopters the base was aware of. The [Capsule] Crew found that out for us. And so as we go along a little further, the B-52 crew actually gets things going because now they lent some credibility to what we were saying, and the events that happened with them, now everybody's on alert—when I say "alert," we're saying "ah gosh, what's happened here?" is there something—
JK: But you did hear some of that—
SMITH: Oh, I heard the traffic. Absolutely. They left me on and, 'cause I'm looking at my people and saying "gosh, guys, they're really, see we told them all these times" [laughs]. And so when the crew did that my Capsule [Crew] also were excited, really excited, so one of them I think had an idea that they might call Air Defense Command, I think he had some connections or knew some people there or something. And from what he was saying to us they were able to use some radar manipulations, and they were able to see something operating they said 50 miles above where we were in the general vicinity—they couldn't pinpoint it but they said—50 miles above. And now everybody's heightened, you know, and we're talking about what's going to happen.
Smith, 2001, pp.12-13
Hello Tim,
ReplyDeleteThat's cool to see you are working on Minot case. And cool to see Thomas Tulien here: his site is well known by us in France. GG to his work BTW.
Amitiés,
Gilles
Gilles, good to hear from you. I still sifting through the data and documents. Tom is correct, there is a lot to review and study. It's certainly one of the most interesting cases that I've come across.
ReplyDeleteYes, Tom Tulien has an impressive website. I've been busy looking at the interviews that he and Jim Klotz have conducted with the various individuals connected with the case. Good and informative stuff.
I see that you have been very active on Kevin Randle's site...battling with David Rudiak and others.
Best Regards, my friend
Tim
Tom TulienAugust 16, 2013 at 10:06 PM
ReplyDeleteTim:
Again, I fully appreciate the fact that you are willing to take the time to review the case and extend a critical approach and objectivity to the work. I just want to have assumptions challenged and to learn.
Kind regards, tom
Delete
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim HebertAugust 17, 2013 at 12:55 PM
Tom,
Rest assured that I am thoroughly going over the the data...inch by inch. This is one of the reasons that I've yet posted any sections of my work as of yet.
I specialized in psychiatric nursing (my second and last career/profession) and based on all of my so-called advanced degrees which research methodology played (still does) an important part, it compels me to be as thorough as I can.
I'm sure that you know that based on my blog's theme that I tend to be skeptical of things, but I'm not a hard ass skeptic (contrary to what others have written) for life experiences or not necessarily black and white...there tends to be a lot of grey area.
I apply a subjective vs objective approach to most things, similar to what I do as a psychiatric nurse. Subjective as to what is told/written by witnesses and objective as to what hard verifiable data is available to corroborate...or not. And I will draw a tentative conclusion, tentative being that some conclusions may be changed based on new data being discovered.
I do have a couple of working hypothesis concerning the Minot case, but I need to work on those for awhile for I may be easily off base. But bare in mind, if I present them it would only be listed as "possibilities" versus hard evidence that contradicts.
As far as my experience with the Minuteman system, that only helps for a portion of the case. The rest has me wishing that I'd done what I really wanted to do, back in the day,... going to navigator training, as that would have been more of value when looking at this case.
Tom, also rest assured that my effort is NOT to be construed as a rebuttal to your work. To the contrary, I want to see if BB's conclusions are plausible or lacking and why for either account. I may well, at the end, present a full or partial rebuttal of the BB investigation...
Best Regards,
Tim