Too much focus on the November security personnel and maintenance team near/on N-07 at the expense of Smith's observations at Oscar? That appears to be the case, albeit quietly from Tom.
So I'll try this once again. True, Tom Tulien is correct that Smith's AF-117 lists his observations as starting at 0230 in the morning while he was manning the FSC's office at Oscar which puts his sightings at 30 minutes before the reported times of the November security personnel, listed at 0308. Oscar is 20-some miles NE of N-07. I'm not ignoring Smith's observations, but following along with what was first reported to Blue Book.
The story begins with the maintenance team traveling to N-07...and the times listed for the observations of O'Connor and Isley are somewhat earlier than Smith's from a timeline prospective, 0230 and 0030 respectively.
The story begins with the maintenance team traveling to N-07...and the times listed for the observations of O'Connor and Isley are somewhat earlier than Smith's from a timeline prospective, 0230 and 0030 respectively.
From the Wing Security Control summary:
"At 0308 hours the initial report was received from a maintenance team enroute from Nov-8 to Nov-7..." [This would have been when the team arrived at N-07 and contacted Bond.] Despite Smith's 0230 initial observation time as listed on his AF-117, the WSC summary lists his time as 0320. Was this in error? Or does this reflect the correct time for Smith?
From the Base Operations log:
"0800. Object 8/E of N-7 moving toward site with brillant light like sun...[Supposed description of maintenance team and/or security team in the November area.]
There is no mentioning of Smith other than a section in the WSC summary stating that Smith saw the object split into two separate objects, which is incorrect because Smith never stated so in his AF-117. That does not negate anything that Smith has to say in regards to his AF-117 as his observations may play an important role as to the involvement, if any, of the camper team that was posted on 0-6 or the topside intrusion on 0-7. This will be covered in a separate blog post.
This is why I started off by looking at November flight, because the story starts there, not Oscar. The eventual arrival of the B-52 was precipitated by the maintenance team's observations and the subsequent November security team's observation, not what Smith at Oscar observed.
Smith may well represent a secondary story, but just as interesting as that of November flight. Tom Tulien believes that Smith's observations correlate to a separate UFO incursion over or near 0-6 and that the camper team [providing security for a combat targeting team on site] saw a UFO near their location. Interesting theory, but there are problems associated with this scenario as there is no documentation/evidence that puts such a team on 0-6 other than the camper team providing site security due to a faulty security zone reset. But, this will all be discussed in a separate posting....patience is a virtue.
Question to ponder: Suppose Isley and O'Connor never saw anything to report, but Smith still reported his observations from Oscar. Would the B-52 crew have been asked to look for a possible UFO in the Oscar flight area base upon Smith's observations? Would Smith's observations been sent to PBB for analysis?
Again, the story originates with November flight...
There is no mentioning of Smith other than a section in the WSC summary stating that Smith saw the object split into two separate objects, which is incorrect because Smith never stated so in his AF-117. That does not negate anything that Smith has to say in regards to his AF-117 as his observations may play an important role as to the involvement, if any, of the camper team that was posted on 0-6 or the topside intrusion on 0-7. This will be covered in a separate blog post.
This is why I started off by looking at November flight, because the story starts there, not Oscar. The eventual arrival of the B-52 was precipitated by the maintenance team's observations and the subsequent November security team's observation, not what Smith at Oscar observed.
Smith may well represent a secondary story, but just as interesting as that of November flight. Tom Tulien believes that Smith's observations correlate to a separate UFO incursion over or near 0-6 and that the camper team [providing security for a combat targeting team on site] saw a UFO near their location. Interesting theory, but there are problems associated with this scenario as there is no documentation/evidence that puts such a team on 0-6 other than the camper team providing site security due to a faulty security zone reset. But, this will all be discussed in a separate posting....patience is a virtue.
Question to ponder: Suppose Isley and O'Connor never saw anything to report, but Smith still reported his observations from Oscar. Would the B-52 crew have been asked to look for a possible UFO in the Oscar flight area base upon Smith's observations? Would Smith's observations been sent to PBB for analysis?
Again, the story originates with November flight...
Hi Tim:
ReplyDeleteThe November security personnel all report their initial observation at 3:08, from N-1, ten miles to the north of N-7. In their AF-117s, Bond and Adams indicate that they were directed to the location by a maintenance team at N-7, and Jablonski states that he did not see it immediately, but after it reappeared 3-4 minutes later it was quite bright. Therefore, at around 3:00, O’Connor unlocked the gate to N-7, walked onto the facility, opened the support building access, went down and phoned in the report to SSgt. Bond (at 3:04-3:05), who subsequently reported their observation at N-1 to WSC.
This places O’Connor and Isley outside the N-7 gate at 3:00 observing the UFO circling to the south, where they began reporting their observations to the Base Operations dispatcher. [0800. Object 8/E (sic) of N-7 moving toward site with brillant (sic) light like the sun. Lights flashing on and off. Its too brillant (sic) and big for an aircraft now moving south and hovered over N-7, turned green, amber off than on.] However, both reported their initial observation while driving on the road north of N-7, and the direction of the observation was in the east (out of the “side window of vehicle” in direct line with O-6 at about 13 miles distant). They both indicate that it then “started moving south” and “the object grew brighter moving S.E” (suggesting that it was closing distance). They stopped the vehicle at one point to observe the UFO from outside the vehicle. O’Connor states that when they stopped, the object appeared to hover or stop when they turned off the headlights. Both state that they were driving on a gravel road at 30-35 mph, so it would require at least 10-15 minutes to arrive at N-7. After arriving at N-7, they started observing the object from outside the truck moving in a large circular area to the south.
Based on a reconstruction of the timeline from the documentation, the maintenance teams initial observation was at least fifteen minutes before 3:00. If they had stopped longer on the road, or sat outside N-7 communicating with base ops or observing the object and wondering what to do, it would be consistent with the reported time of 2:30.
Isley’s incorrect time of 0030Z is not supported by other information. I imagine that 0030 was when his alarm went off alerting him to report for duty! Other than this one discrepancy (or notational error?), the information in his AF-117 is consistent with O’Connor and the others.
Correct me if I am wrong: would it be reasonable to accept the maintenance teams initial observation of the object at 2:30, from a position 5 miles north of N-7 low on the horizon in the east? Furthermore, this is independently corroborated by SSgt. Smith in response to questions #2, 5, 6, 6a, 7, 11e, 14, 19, 23, 23a, and 25, in his AF-117. Someone (?) notified him that “it had been seen in an adjacent area.” In response, he alerted his posted sentries, who then observed the object south of his position at O-1. Smith observed the object at 2:30; “about 15 minutes after my sentry sighted it” (at 2:15). Further, he provides a map of the location of the object in the immediate vicinity of O-6. So, according to the documentation, correct me if I am wrong; would it be reasonable to assume that the maintenance team and Smith are observing the same object at the same time?
http://www.minotb52ufo.com/maps/ground-observation1.php
Based on the documentation, the story originates at Oscar Flight…
Kind regards, Tom
Tom,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment and points of view. It appears, for now, that we are in a slight disagreement concerning the incident's point of origination from an observational stance...again, for now. But, I do see why you take the position that Smith at Oscar may have been the first to see something, or more exactly, the camper team at O-6.
What is of interest is the time of Smith's sighting, 0320, listed in the WSC log versus the 0230 listed in his AF-117. Error on WSC part or maybe the time that Smith actually contacted TSgt Bowles at WSC?
Personally, I've no problem with Smith's 0230 time. And will expand on my thoughts in a later post dedicated to Smith and Oscar Flight.
Sincerely,
Tim
Dear Tim:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.minotb52ufo.com/pdf/0015.pdf
The Wing Security Controller’s summary is a curious document. It does not identify its provenance or indicate when it was composed. Was it recorded concurrent with the events, or composed after-the-fact from notes or memory written down by the controller? Is it a complete accounting? Who is actually responsible? The fact that it begins with Bond’s report at 3:08 would identify the author(s) as SSgt. Underhill and SSgt. Neal.
Note that Smith reported his observation to TSgt. Bowles at WSC presumably at 2:30. (Had he reported at 3:20 it would have most likely been to Underhill and Neal). According to their interviews, both Bond and Smith remained in contact with their capsule crews who were following ongoing events involving the B-52 over their distinct network. Perhaps the crew provided the information to WSC for his observation at 3:20. I don’t know why Smith did not report this in his AF-117, or why the controller would concoct the event if it didn’t actually occur. On the other hand, independent observations of two objects described similarly are included in the AF-117s for the (3) November security personnel, O’Connor, and Isley. No specific time is included, however, the Base Operations dispatcher notes at 3:28: “Two are seen now,” which places the observation in the same timeframe. In addition, the RAPCON transcript begins with the statement at 3:30 [3:40?]: “Controllers received information on UFO 24 miles NW.” Roughly, 10 nmi WNW of N-7. No source for the report is provided for this other UFO.
The (4) events WSC summary describes (plus identification of the camper team at O-6 as having observed the UFO, though, omitting a time) are in chronological order and supported by other documentation, with the exception of the second event ascribed to Bond that is unsupported and clearly denied to have occurred at N-1 in his interview (supported by evidence that his SAT were dispatched to N-7). What is striking about this apparent event is the detail that was recorded, and cause for alarm concerning a strange object near the hardened antenna (designed to transmit launch codes) within the security fencing of a Launch Control Facility. It is unique and does not appear to be a derivation of any other observation report in the documents. Why would the controller intentionally make up this one event whole cloth and include it in a document for others? Is it an event that occurred at another facility? Was there a reason for WSC to obscure the actual location of the event, or did the controller simply make a mistake? There is another candidate. RAPCON received information on a UFO observation at 3:30 [3:40?] 24 miles NW. Mike-1 LCF is located 25 nmi NW of the base. (This is also a candidate for the UFO that paced the B-52 for 10 minutes).
con't...
http://www.minotb52ufo.com/pdf/0015.pdf
ReplyDeleteWhy is the “entire observation period as near as can be determined” limited to about 45 minutes: beginning at 3:08 and ending at 3:53, which is the time McCaslin would have first observed the UFO on the radarscope? Why would the controller cease recording at this point? According to Bond and Smith, the capsule crews continued monitoring the events over their network until at least the time the B-52 communications resumed, and both UFOs had disappeared.
What of the “approximate grid coordinate of the apparent landing at AA-43”? How would they know since their reporting ceased at 3:53? Are there other ground observer reports that were not provided to Werlich? If RAPCON provided the information, how did they know the location of the landing? Radar returns? Or, did Tower personnel observe it? The curious thing about this is any information concerning the B-52 in the selective documents ceases following the radar encounter, while, according to the entries in the Transcript, any further UFO events involving the B-52 did not happen. For example, the Base Operations dispatcher was apparently out of the loop following the radar encounter. At 4:26, just prior to the time of the B-52 over flight of the UFO on or near the ground, he provides a statement (rather than a sighting report) concerning the B-52 radar encounter, and adds, “the B-52 went around again and negative contact,” seemingly unaware (or uninformed) that the B-52 was going around a second time. In addition, the vector for the turn onto the 290-degree downwind leg at 4:24-4:25 [4:30 according to Partin] (when the pilots observed the UFO ahead of the aircraft on or near the ground) is curiously absent from the Transcript, as well as, the time coding for the final go-around following 4:21.
AA-43 is noted on this map:
http://www.minotb52ufo.com/maps/ground-observation5.php
con't...
I would naturally assume if the camper team reported their observation to WSC during the times covered in this document that there would be a specific time associated with the report. Otherwise, the report must have been received prior to 3:08. Smith provides information in support of this, as does James Bond in his interview. Note that the first 14 pages of the Bond interview are concerned with context and background, and not until page 15 do I ask him to recount the UFO observation. I assumed that he would begin by discussing the maintenance teams report received shortly after 3:00. Curiously, his initial recall concerns a report he received from his capsule crew, who asked him if he saw anything out of the ordinary and provided a direction to look. He did see something, and recalls being told: “there’s a maintenance crew over there that’s really scared out of their gourds because this thing is right in the area where they’re at, and they’re trying to do a reprogram on one of the birds that’s in one of the holes over there— and I thought that a little strange.” Following this, he jumps ahead in time to a point where the SAT has already been dispatched to N-7.
ReplyDeleteBond’s recall is strikingly similar to Smith’s independent recall on pages 14-15 of his interview: “But if that team were working and as I recall the officer called it in, notified the officer in charge, a captain in charge, and they shut the site up. He said, ‘we’re leaving here.’ Some of his crew had seen, from what I understand, had seen the light as well, not just the Camper member but also some of the Targeting Team. . . Pretty close, they said ‘very close.’ It went down by some trees not far away, that is what they were saying to us, and we said, ‘Oh my gosh, what’s going on here now?’ I remember him calling in, said, ‘well, we can do this another time it’s just not worth us being out here.’”
The preponderance of information supports an observation by the camper team at O-6 prior to 3:08. They were either posted on O-6 because the alarms would not reset, or they were providing aboveground security for an exposed warhead. It appears to be the latter, but, regardless; the issue is when the camper team observed the UFO. According to Smith’s AF-117 their initial observation was at 2:15. The lack of time in the controller’s summary can be understood to support this.
Kind regards, Tom