Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The McKnight Affidavit and the Roswell Crash

It seems to me that if a skeptic writes something that is anti-UFO, it is accepted as fact immediately. If a proponent writes something that is pro-UFO, it is rejected immediately. There is no criticism of the anti stance, just acceptance of it all and no acceptance of the pro stance, just a rejection of it.

Such is the case with the McKnight Affidavit. Philip Klass, in his monumentally inept The Real Roswell Crashed-Saucer Coverup, wrote, “Important new evidence to further challenge [Frank] Kaufmann’s story emerged in early 1997 in the form of a sworn statement by Jim McKnight whose Aunt Florence owned the ranch on which the flying saucer allegedly had crashed. McKnight’s father owned the adjacent land. (McKnight’s affidavit, dated February 3, 1997, was obtained by officials of the Roswell International UFO Museum, in response to Randle’s challenge to the “new Ragsdale impact site” west of Roswell.) In McKnight’s affidavit he said, “No one in my family had any knowledge of such a [UFO] crash or military retrieval... I cannot believe that a convoy of Army trucks and cars could have come and gone without them noticing. If they had seen it, they would have told us about it” [emphasis in original].

No one pointed out the obvious flaw in Jim McKnight’s thinking which was, simply, if it had happened “they would have told us about it.” Well, maybe not. Families do keep secrets from one another, especially when they believe they are protecting their relatives.

The second flaw that is not so obvious, and not mentioned by Klass, is that Jim McKnight didn’t live in Roswell at the time of the event. If he wasn’t there, then he certainly could be telling the truth, as he knew it. He could honestly believe that nothing happened because he had seen nothing himself and heard nothing about it from the family. However, that is not quite the same thing as him having been in a position to see anything and report on it. If he wasn’t there, then how does he really know who saw what?

Klass continued with his speculations based on limited information. He wrote, “If there had been a military convoy, including a large crane to recover the crashed saucer, as Kaufmann claimed, it would have passed within a hundred yards of his Aunt Florence’s ranch house, McKnight told me during a telephone interview on March 21, 1997.” (McKnight ranch as seen in 1991).

All well and good, but how does McKnight or Klass know the route taken by the military to get to that site? How does he know that it would have passed within a hundred yards of the house?

Klass noted, “According to McKnight, although his aunt then resided in Roswell, where she taught school, during the summer months she usually [emphasis added] lived on the ranch.”

So, according to what Klass had been told, McKnight’s aunt might not have even been there in July 1947. She might not have been in a position to see the military as they passed within Klass’ estimated one hundred yards.

Klass wrote, “His aunt employed a hired hand to look after the ranch. He lived there permanently. Furthermore, there was no roadway west of the McKnight ranch that the military convoy could use to reach the ‘impact site,’ because of a macho [this I believe is a reference to Macho Draw] – a large creek be that often flooded. It was not until 1960 [emphasis in the original], according to McKnight’s affidavit, that his aunt ‘hired a bulldozer to build a crossing,’ over the macho that would enable cars to reach the Kaufmann ‘impact site.’”

Of course, the military convoy wouldn’t have worried about roads nor would they need one to get somewhere. The military vehicles were built to operate on rugged terrain without benefit of roads. Besides, the desert out there is fairly flat and military vehicles would have been able to cross it without a lot of trouble. I remember driving cars across some of that desert without much trouble (and, of course, I remember having difficultly getting cars passed some of the dips and turns in the alleged roads there).

The fact that the road today... or rather in the early 1990s, came within a hundred or two hundred yards of the decayed and collapsed ranch house is actually irrelevant. The military didn’t need roads to travel across the desert. If the road wasn’t there, then Klass’ estimate of the distance to the house is also irrelevant. Of course, none of the skeptics noted this.

McKnight said, “Never, never did the subject of such an event as the Roswell Incident come up for discussion. I know the people who settled in that harsh environment... No amount of military threats would have silenced them, especially when they talked among themselves.”

Then, not happy with just suggesting that nothing happened out in that area based on the testimony of a single man who wasn’t even there at the time, Klass wrote, “Several of Randle’s still-credible witnesses had recalled seeing a military patrol near Highway 285, seemingly positioned to keep any unauthorized visitors from turning off and driving to the ‘impact site’ on the McKnight ranch. But, if there had not been a UFO crash on the McKnight ranch, then the recollections of these witnesses were seriously flawed...”

Believing the single witness who was not there, Klass now rejects the testimony of witnesses who were there based on the single witness beliefs. If a single witness tells the story the skeptic wants to hear, then the single witness is believed and all other witness testimony is rejected.

I know the question being asked now is, “Why bring all this up today?”

Well, for one thing, I’m tired of being attacked for sloppy research when the evidence against my research is rather thin. In other words, I am defending my reporting of the facts (or to prevent a long and convoluted discussion, the facts as reported by various witnesses).

But there is a second reason. While in Roswell, I learned of a local who talked about the Kaufmann impact site. This witness said that her family, the McKnights, who were related to the Corns who owned the land in the 1990s... said that when the crash happened, one of the McKnights went over to a neighbor and asked them if they wanted to see the “little people.” Before they could get out there, the military had sealed off the site.

Why is this important? Well, it refutes the McKnight affidavit that Klass relied on. It refutes the idea that the family didn’t talk about this among themselves. It refutes the idea that the military couldn’t get out there without the McKnights knowing... well, they couldn’t because the McKnights did know.

At this point I just don’t want to reveal the source and I understand that skeptics and proponents alike will reject this story simply because there is no name attached to it. Right now I am comfortable with that. Right now, the name of the source is not important... What is important is that skeptics and debunkers accepted the McKnight affidavit without critical comment.

And, no, I am not suggesting that we reevaluate the Kaufmann story nor am I offering this as evidence that Kaufmann may have had some sort of inside knowledge. I am only suggesting that Klass et. al. rejected testimony from Bill Rickett, Willliam Woody, and Walt Whitmore among others who said they saw military vehicles parked on the roads leading off Highway 285 because Jim McKnight knew nothing of a crash. Klass’ conclusion that their memories were flawed was itself flawed.

And no, this does not take us to the extraterrestrial. It merely means that Klass’ analysis of the situation is flawed, but I have seen nothing from the skeptical side questioning what he wrote. One man, who wasn’t there in 1947 said nothing happened and Klass believed him. Those who were there in 1947 and who saw things themselves are rejected because, certainly, nothing could happened and therefore those who report it did, have flawed memories.

And maybe it’s Klass who should be accused of sloppy research. He got the answer he wanted and stopped looking. Those of us who understand proper research realize there is always another question to ask. That’s the only way to really do it. That’s how we get to the truth and not just what we want to believe.

17 comments:

Sarge said...

It quite often goes the other way as well. Sadly enough, far too many are more than willing to accept every UFO tail that comes down the pike. Even admitted hoaxers are attacked when they come forward to expose their own accepted stories.

cda said...

Yes it an example of Klass accepting what he wanted to hear. But as Sarge says, it works both ways. Often ETHers accept what THEY want to hear. You presumably accept those stories about the military trucks with armed guards parked on the roads off highway 285.

The problem with this is that all these stories (yes, every one without exception) originated 40 years after the event. Find a contemporary, '47 or '48, report that tells us this fact.

Sourcerer said...

Kevin: "He got the answer he wanted and stopped looking. Those of us who understand proper research realize there is always another question to ask. That’s the only way to really do it. That’s how we get to the truth and not just what we want to believe."

Then what is the question that reveals the truth here?

Skeptics like McKnight because he testifies to everything being ordinary, normal. Advocates like informants who testify to things being abnormal. Piling on informants (or 'witnesses' as many prefer) doesn't alter the absence of evidence.

'Evidence' would be some fact, no matter how trivial and unrelated to ET, that testifies to the circumstances at that time and place...true "circumstantial evidence", which illuminates the testimony, giving evidence whether or not their statements fit the time and place.

These later crash sites stories are outside of my area of interest, so I don't know the stories and whether there is anything in them that hints of the time and place. Experience tells me if there are such hints, they have been ingnored in the endless quest to prove/disprove ET.

Regards,

Don

KRandle said...

All -

I thought that my comments during the "Cal" posting pointed out that the true believers do the same thing. I mentioned there are those who believe the Allende Letters even thought Allende (Carl Allen) said he made it up. I mentioned the alien autopsy because those involved have been identified. I could have mentioned MJ-12 because Bill Moore said he was thinking of creating a "Roswell" document.


CDA -

Your broken record is becoming boring. Yes, memories are open to changes after years. Yes, people "create" memories about events. But yes, some people do not do so and some events are important enough that their memories remain unclouded. This too works both ways... and you know very well that I wasn't even born in 1947 so it is difficult for me to have interviewed people back then.

Don -

I was actually thinking of the question that Karl Pflock didn't ask of the fireman, which was "Did you know Dan Dwyer?"

But a good question for Klass might have been, "Have you (Jim McKnight) ever asked the family about this?" Then we have more information and are not relying on what he believes to be the truth.

And while I'm sure your search is for bits of debris, the craft, and the bodies, the eyewitness statements, the newspaper articles, and some of the UFO files are types of evidence. We each must assign to each type of evidence the importance it holds for us.

You might not be impressed with Edwin Easley's statement to me because (a) I can't prove he said it, and (b) it is still testimony as opposed to something more solid. I, on the other hand, find it persuasive because he said it to me and I know what he said.

There are those who would not accept a government statement that Roswell was extraterrestrial. They want something more and I understand that.

My point was that I am attacked for being sloppy when the issues were raised by skeptics and debunkers. The difference in what we learned is the point of contention. Skeptics accept Klass without question. I suggest that they would be better served by asking some questions rather than saying I was sloppy.

Sourcerer said...

My search is really for 'trivial' information that situates the informant's story in the summer of 1947, and not, say, of 1949 or 1946.

For example Bill Brazel Jr's story of why Mack went to Roswell, and Loretta Proctor's story of why they didn't drive over to Brazel's place for a look. I think those stories reflect the summer of 1947 very well. I have confidence in them because at that time there was a rubber shortage, and a gasoline shortage severe enough to affect the military. There was also a steel shortage and automobile production had a sharp decline. GM announced 115,000 layoffs.

Maybe the same situation occured in the summer of 1946 or 1949, too (and that is worth a few hours of research), but the specificity of the 'trivial' circumstances in their statements points to July 1947.

So, it is evidence for the quality of their recollection.


Regards,

Don

Sourcerer said...

I should point out to the over-eager, I am not saying it is proof of anything, but that it is good circumstantial evidence, unlike when there is no such evidence, in stories that seem to take place in a generic locale.

Regards,

Don

cda said...

Kevin:

"You might not be impressed with Edwin Easley's statement to me because (a) I can't prove he said it, and (b) it is still testimony as opposed to something more solid. I, on the other hand, find it persuasive because he said it to me and I know what he said."

Why not look at p.14 of your 2nd book with Don Schmitt. Here we have Easley revealing things like "he promised the president that he would never reveal what he had seen. But Easley knew what he had seen, confirming that the craft had been extraterrestrial in origin".

But later on, in your ROSWELL UFO CRASH UPDATE you interview Easley yourself, where he tells you he cannot say anything and is sworn to secrecy. (Yes, he knew about Roswell because he had been interviewed by others before you, NOT because of any real memory of the event). He also makes one remark indicating he was not even at the crash site. Read it yourself if you doubt me (page 161).

You swear by Easley as a witness, yet while telling you virtually nothing, he is alleged to have sworn to president Truman (!) about keeping quiet about it. (Did this come directly to you from Easley or was it told by a family member to another interviewer?). Moreover, he KNEW the craft was extraterrestrial. Remarkable man indeed.

Do you not realise the silliness of all this? How can anyone curious about the case possibly accept this Easley 'testimony' as it stands? How can anyone accept testimony from a man who, by his own admission, cannot say anything!?

Yet you accept Easley's testimony as "persuasive".

Again we have strayed from the original topic.

KRandle said...

CDA -

First, as far as I know, Easley had neither been found nor interviewed by anyone before I talked to him. I looked for him because, as the provost marshal, he would have been involved in the security for the sites.

Second, he told me, personally, that he had been sworn to secrecy and I have those statements on tape. He said to me at one point he couldn't talk about it because he had promised the president... Did he personally talk to Truman? I doubt it, but I wouldn't be surprised if there had been a presidential representative sent to Roswell.

Third, he was always honest with me, and when I drifted into a path that had been covered by his oath, he always refused to answer. I was surprised by his admission that he thought the craft was extraterrestrial.

Actually, what he says is that Briley didn't know what he was talking about which is not quite the same thing... and it comes when I mention that MPs had the site cordoned. So it doesn't say what you wish that it did.

My point is, and has been, that if Easely had shown us pictures of the craft and the bodies, you would believe that he fabricated them. You have the Menzel mindset which is nothing alien happened so anything that suggests otherwise is just wrong.

Why not apply your powers of observation and deduction to the skeptical arguments? Klass said that the military convoy passed within 100 yards of the house but says later that the road they used didn't exist in 1947... therefore he has no way of knowing what route the military used.

The only important statement I do not have on tape, based on the circumstances that I have explained in the past, is that Easley's suggestion that the craft was extraterrestrial and I have to live with that error.

cda said...

Kevin:
I have already said that Klass's analysis is flawed. He claims that because one witness (who was not there) says the military convoy could not have done what other witnesses say the convoy did, that his one witness is right and the other witnesses are wrong. Klass was certainly wrong to draw this conclusion, based on McKnight's testimony.

By the way, it was not Klass who said the convoy passed within 100 yards of the ranch house. It was McKnight, in a phone call to Klass, who said this.

Skeptics may have considered this too trivial to point out (as I do), and thus neglected it.

Your own interview with Easley must be about the most useless and pointless Roswell interview ever conducted. He can't tell you anything, except to repeat that he can't tell you anything. Someone else claims Easley was at the crash site, NOT Easley himself, who seems to deny it. Yet you accept his presence as fact. Then he supposedly makes some deathbed 'confession' about ETs, revealed by some family member.

Yes it is pretty obvious Easley had been interviewed (by a person unknown) before he spoke to you. Do you see why?

The 'Easley story' is laughable.

And the Truman (or a Truman representative) visit to Roswell to talk about the 'crash' is equally laughable. Where is the mention in the base monthly news, for example? Why no mention in the press? White House logs?

Yes Klass erred in his analysis. But he does not have to produce 'extraordinary evidence' to back his claims. You, as an ET proponent, DO have to produce 'extraordinary evidence'. Where is it, Kevin?

KRandle said...

CDA -

Of course it was Klass who said the convoy passed within a 100 yards of the house. He said it to me on several occassions and he based it on the location of the road that wasn't built until 1960.

Truman's representative could easily been a military officer sent into Roswell to speak with those involved with the retrieval. It was not necessarily a high-ranking civilian. You seem to believe that everything that happens on a military reservation is recorded for history but there are sometimes security regulations that get in the way.

And my argument here is not that an alien ship crashed at Roswell, but about the sloppy work, inept investigations, and leaps to conclusions that fill skeptical work about UFOs. I therefore do not have to provide extraordinary evidence of these failures, only proof that they exist.

David Rudiak said...

Kevin wrote to cda:

Truman's representative could easily been a military officer sent into Roswell to speak with those involved with the retrieval. It was not necessarily a high-ranking civilian.

Point well taken. Anybody personally representing Truman could swear somebody like Easley to secrecy in the name of the President.

According to Sgt. Robert Smith, his cousin, Raymond Devinney, a member of Truman's secret service told Smith at a family reunion 25 years later he was at Roswell representing Truman. (Karl Pflock simply dismissed all of Smith's story, apparently because he didn't like it, never providing a decent reason as I remember.)

The much-maligned Frank Kaufmann said two secret service agents were there, somebody named McCann and a Devinnes or Devinney.

Grant Cameron did a search at the Truman library website and didn't find a Devinnes/Devinney on the secret service list (doesn't mean necessarily that he didn't exist), but the name Gerald McCann did pop up, a member of the secret service at the White House from 1946-1952. As Cameron remarks, what are the odds?

You seem to believe that everything that happens on a military reservation is recorded for history but there are sometimes security regulations that get in the way.

This nonsense is not limited to cda. In DebunkerLand, if something is not written down at the time, then it never happened.

I have seen this argument applied to Roswell a million times at least. No newspaper report mentioned special debris, or alien spaceship, or alien bodies, therefore there were none. Nevermind such things were mentioned in indirect military denials, such as a Pentagon press release just before the Roswell PR denying the flying discs were spaceships, or Ramey denying the Roswell disc could carry a man (denial of bodies), or Ramey and his intel chief the week before denying the flying discs were men from Mars.

Debunker Corollary #1 is that even if it was written down but goes against the prevailing debunker narrative or directly contradicts something they want to believe, just blow it off or pretend it doesn't exist.

Thus Marcel in 1947 being quoted saying debris was scattered over a square mile can be ignored. Sheriff Wilcox refusing to answer questions about the disc giving the reason he was "working with those fellows at the base" can be ignored. Ramey saying the disc would have been 25 feet across if reconstructed can be ignored. The press release saying Brazel found the debris "sometime last week" can be ignored as can Wilcox's "two or three days" before, or Wilcox's saying Brazel came in to report "the day before yesterday" [Sunday, July 6] instead of the debunker favorite of the day before [July 7].

A very recent example of ignoring what was actually written down at the time was cda insisting Brazel came in only to get the adverterized reward money, not because he thought he had found anything special. (Another typical debunker argument I have read by elsewhere many times) Nevermind the newspapers at the time didn't mention offered rewards for a disc until July 8 at the earliest, i.e., too late for Brazel to have heard about the rewards in any way, except perhaps through remote viewing.

At least cda finally backed down from that one. (I think--one never knows)

And Mogul "Flight #4" still explains Roswell even though it never flew and doesn't exist in Mogul records other than as a big blank, along with the previous two canceled non-flights, that debunkers also claim existed to help make #4 "exist". Debunking means never having to say you're sorry no matter how many times you are proven wrong.

Sourcerer said...

David "...cda insisting Brazel came in only to get the adverterized reward money..."

To be fair the reward story isn't only accepted by skeptics. Carey and Schmiitt accept it (at least at one time. I assume they still do), and it can be found on Marcel Jr's Roswell Legacy book website, plus other ET advocate sites.

The earliest mention I'm aware of giving a reason why Brazel reported his find is in FRR10:

"Sheriff's officers said that Brizell told them he planned to keep the object, but then heard reports of flying discs and decided to drive in to Roswell and report his finding to the sheriff's office."


The reward story, had it been true, would fit nicely here. As it is, it just points up that we have no idea what Mack had heard about flying discs.

Regards,

Don

David Rudiak said...

Don, there are only two stories I'm aware of by which Brazel heard of the flying discs, only one of which was reported publicly in 1947:

1. He heard about them from neighbors Floyd and Loretta Proctor when he showed them some of the debris. They advised him to go to Roswell and report it, since it may have come from one of the flying saucers that had been in the news.

2. He heard about them in Corona the evening of July 5. (the publicly reported one)

Either way, there was no mention of rewards at the time (none of which had been mentioned in the written press until July 8), only that the Proctors/Corona people knew about the flying saucers in the news.

Further, no Roswell news story I'm aware of from the period mentions Brazel reported it to collect a reward. There is a suggestion in his newspaper interview that he did it out of a sense of public duty, namely his statement that he would never report it again unless it was a bomb. That also suggests a man under a lot of stress and upset at how he was being treated.

cda said...

DR:
We were talking about Klass. I agreed that Klass accepted someone's evidence that matched his own negative stance while rejecting other evidence that opposed it. Kevin showed up the severe weakness of Klass, then introduced the matter of the Easley interview.

We are NOT going into Mogul, Wilcox, Ramey, Brazel and such again I hope.

You are bringing in extraneous matters to bolster your ideas about 'debunkerland' and such.

Why not look at that Easley interview (transcript) and decide whether the said interview has any value whatever? Several of Easley's guys say he was at the crash site, but Easley himself refuses to say anything, then virtually denies his presence. If Easley was sworn to secrecy, then presumably all of them were. Pity they didn't keep their mouths shut.

So a secret service agent called McCann may have visited Roswell. Exactly when? More important, what was the reason for his visit? It is up to you or Kevin to demonstrate that it was to do with the Roswell crash. Since Roswell was a nuclear weapons facility with high security, it is indeed possible McCann visited the place sometime during his 6-year tenure. Big deal!

Yes, Klass was wrong in this instance. I have admitted to being wrong at times. But I did ask Kevin where his 'extraordinary evidence' is. Where is yours?

David Rudiak said...

We are NOT going into Mogul, Wilcox, Ramey, Brazel and such again I hope.

You are bringing in extraneous matters to bolster your ideas about 'debunkerland' and such.


SOMETHING happened at Roswell. When the official story is highly inconsistent and full of serious contradictions, then yes, it does matter what Wilcox, Ramey, Marcel, Brazel, et. al. did say in opposition to one another and the official explanation and shouldn't be blown off or ignored.

E.g., Marcel's "square mile" of debris does not add up to the official 1947 weather balloon or modern Mogul balloon, for that matter, especially a Mogul that never existed, according to official records.

Why not look at that Easley interview (transcript) and decide whether the said interview has any value whatever? Several of Easley's guys say he was at the crash site, but Easley himself refuses to say anything, then virtually denies his presence.

This is a very disingenuous way to put Easley's testimony. On tape, Easley admitted to Kevin that he was sworn to secrecy. No doubt about that one. Sworn to secrecy about what? A weather balloon? A nonexistent Mogul balloon?

Then (unrecorded) to Kevin as to whether a space ship was responsible, Easley responded to the effect that let's put it this way, that wasn't the wrong road to take.

Easley also admitted that they held Brazel at the base under armed guard for several days. Again, over what? Nonclassified balloon material shown at Ramey's press conference?

But according to your spin, Easley admitted to absolutely nothing of interest.

If Easley was sworn to secrecy, then presumably all of them were. Pity they didn't keep their mouths shut.

Yes, your world view would be so much more secure if they did keep their mouths such.

So a secret service agent called McCann may have visited Roswell. Exactly when?

According to Kaufmann, during the Roswell incident.

More important, what was the reason for his visit?

Roswell incident.

It is up to you or Kevin to demonstrate that it was to do with the Roswell crash. Since Roswell was a nuclear weapons facility with high security, it is indeed possible McCann visited the place sometime during his 6-year tenure. Big deal!

Shows how little you know about the duties of the Secret Service, which do NOT include nuclear weapons security. They were original created to investigate counterfeiting, then duties expanded to protecting the President, VP, and foreign dignitaries.

Thus the only plausible reason for the Secret Service to be at Roswell would be as a security detail for the President/VP or as emissaries for the President. I'm not aware that Truman or his VP ever visited Roswell. (could be wrong)

Perhaps you can explain how Kaufmann came up with the name of one of Truman's SS agents before the days of the Internet made it possible to do simple searches, like Grant Cameron did at the Truman Library website many years later. Helluva a "coincidence" don't you think?

cda said...

I've just looked at THE ROSWELL INCIDENT where we have, according to Bill Moore: "Colonel Irvine visited General Ramey on an undisclosed mission, which almost certainly included a discussion about the crashed disc". This was on July 10 and is revealed in a formerly classified memo.

This is the gospel according to William L. Moore.

If DR can produce a document or photo showing Gerald McCann meeting Blanchard or someone in command at RAAF during July, he could then say that it "almost certainly included a discussion about the crashed disc".

This would be the gospel according to David Rudiak (or possibly Grant Cameron or maybe even Kevin Randle).

I have nothing to add (words fail me), except that we have strayed from our subject, again.

Sourcerer said...

David: "Don, there are only two stories I'm aware of by which Brazel heard of the flying discs, only one of which was reported publicly in 1947..."

There is nothing in the press about what exactly Hollis Wilson told Brazel about the discs. Did the Proctors say?

FRR10 has it that Brazel did not intend to report it until he'd heard about the discs, which indicates it was not anything interfering with his business -- whether the mess created on his field, or as a danger to the sheep, or any other such stories.

I don't see why a generic 'Lots of people are reporting seeing disks flying through the sky recently' in itself would motivate him to report it. In the context of time and place, if there was an opinion about the disks, I think it would be they are secret army tests. I can see that as motivating Brazel to report, especially because of little things like "Trinity".

"There is a suggestion in his newspaper interview that he did it out of a sense of public duty, namely his statement that he would never report it again unless it was a bomb. That also suggests a man under a lot of stress and upset at how he was being treated."

Brazel is never quoted as saying "flying disk", and, in fact, in his interview with two independent interviewers, he is never quoted describing the debris. We only have attributions to him.

He is directly quoted about his desire to keep his story confidential. He is not looking for publicity. He is also concerned he might be teased by his peers if it turns out his find is something he should have recognized (that is my interpretation). If he wanted his report to go to the army, he probably had an expectation it would be kept confidential, especially if he thought it was a secret army experiment or test.

That the army instead provoked the press and created a fuss with him at the center, and for the army to publicize what he found was something he ought to have indentified, then I can see him being very upset, and he is quoted saying it was not a balloon or a kite as claimed by the army.

It takes the later stories, such as Easley's, to put Brazel under some kind of custody for some purpose. I don't think it is unlikely since there was a cover-up of something by the army associated with Brazel and his find. And Brazel never is quoted about what is was, but only what it wasn't.


Regards,

Don