Tuesday, August 28, 2018

Edwin Easley and Me


Since we’ve reached a point where evidence has evaporated into opinion, let’s take a look at what Edwin Easley told me. I don’t believe anyone else ever talked to him, so while what is read in the cold prose on the sterile page, I listened to his inflections, his hesitations, and what he said based on my experience as a military
Edwin Easley.
intelligence officer.

First, nothing he said takes us directly to the extraterrestrial in the first interview. He said he was sworn to secrecy, but you could say that this is what is told to those in classified briefings about almost anything. Classified briefings frequently open with a warning that the contents are classified and disclosure to those not cleared can result in a prison term and hefty fine.

Second, he said that he had promised the president that he wouldn’t talk about it. Does that mean he talked to Harry Truman personally, or did Truman send a representative to Roswell to learn what those officers knew and tell them that it wasn’t something they could talk about openly. I believe that Easley told the president’s representative that he wouldn’t talk about it.

Third, that the president was involved moves us from the really mundane. In other words, it suggests that Mogul, for example, is not the answer. The balloon launches in Alamogordo were detailed in the newspaper on July 10, 1947. Clearly, the recovery of the remains of a balloon array wouldn’t have caught the president’s attention, and no one would care if anyone talked about it. True, the purpose was classified, but no one was talking about the purpose, only the activities in New Mexico.

Fourth, is there a terrestrial explanation for this sort of response? In 1947, the size and shape of the atomic bomb was classified. If the 509th Bomb Group had dropped a mock up somewhere in the desert, that might have required some sort of higher level response. I’m not sure what the intelligence value would have been just by seeing the mock up and estimating the size, but it was classified.

So, we have an explanation for the effort to conceal what had been found near Roswell that isn’t of alien manufacture. It is something that would have been concealed, though you would think that Jesse Marcel, Sr., would know what the bomb looked like, and would have known what it was, but that’s an argument for later.

What else did Easley say during that conversation?

Well, he said he was the provost marshal, or rather confirmed that he was. But, heck, I had that information from the Yearbook and the Unit History, and from some of those who served at Roswell in 1947. No great revelation there.

When I asked if he had been out to the crash site, he said, “I can’t talk about it. I told you that.”

Well, that does, sort of, suggest he had been out to the crash site, but doesn’t move us to the extraterrestrial. We all know that something fell in 1947, it’s the identification of it that has us somewhat confused.

Later, however, when I mention that Colonel Briley had said that the provost marshal had been out to the crash site, Easley said, “He doesn’t know what he was talking about.”

So, that sort of suggests that he wasn’t out to the crash site. However, as the provost marshal, he would have had the ultimate responsibility for the security at the crash site. He certainly could delegate it to another of his officers, but since it is his responsibility, he would have gone out at least once. Whatever happened, Easley going out or not, doesn’t take us to the extraterrestrial.

James Breece
He does suggest that we talk to the rancher, but doesn’t really remember the name. He suggests we talk to Breece, though he called him Freeze. We learned that Breece had died before any of us got deep into the investigation.

In the end, the important point here is that he mentioned having been sworn to secrecy and that he promised the president, or the president’s representative that he wouldn’t talk about it. This merely suggests that something important had happened, but nothing that takes us to the extraterrestrial.

I talked to him three more times about this. The second was on June 23, 1990. The first thing that I asked him was, “How are you doing?”
He said, “Pretty good.”

I asked about Blanchard’s staff meetings and Easley said that he attended those, but didn’t remember much about the meeting held on July 8, 1947. My thought here was that had it been a normal meeting, he probably wouldn’t remember anything, but then, had they discussed the material that Marcel found, if it was of alien manufacture, that
William Blanchard
would have made the meeting special.

I asked if his MPs would have guarded the airplanes involved in transporting the debris, and he said they guarded all the airplanes, meaning all those assigned to the 509th. He did say that none of the MPs were on the flights to Wright Field. That didn’t mean much because they were never used as guards on the flights anyway.

He told me that he hadn’t talked to anyone else about this, meaning, none of the people he knew in 1947 or any other investigators. That means that my interviews with him are unique.

I had thought that if I could arrange for a general officer to call to tell him that he could speak with me candidly about these events, it might free things up. His response was, “I don’t think so.”
He confirmed, again, that he was in Roswell in July, 1947, but we’d already had the documentation to prove it.

He said again, that he really couldn’t talk about it. In fact, at one point I suggested that he seemed to be uncomfortable about talking about this and he said, “Yeah. Sure do.”

The conversation was fairly short, but friendly. I learned very little from it, though his reluctance to talk about it suggested something big had happened. It doesn’t mean that it was extraterrestrial, only that it was something that had been classified in 1947 (not necessarily meaning covered up). He knew that I was thinking of extraterrestrial, but he wasn’t giving me much in the way of information.

The last recorded conversation was on August 13, 1990. It was a wide-ranging conversation that wasn’t really an interview. In fact, the first ten or fifteen minutes was just that, conversation. I did mention that we, meaning Don Schmitt and I, might be down in Fort Worth and wondered if we might stop by. He said, “Fine by me.”

I finally said, “I haven’t asked any specific questions.”

Easley said, “I noticed that.”

We did finally move onto some questions, but it was more about the people who had been assigned to the Roswell Army Air Field in 1947. I asked if he was aware of the guards used outside of town had been transferred out of Roswell not long after this event. He said, “No. Just not aware of it.”

But he did say that the entire 1395 MP Company had been transferred not long after everything ended. My impression here was that the transfer had been planned prior to July because the company wasn’t needed in Roswell. Easley had the 390th Air Service Squadron whose job it was to patrol the base, mount the guard, and the like. In other words, their duties mirrored those of the MP company.

I then began to look through the Yearbook index that George Eberhart had prepared. We’re just chatting about the people he might have known and where they might have gone after leaving Roswell. I’m looking for people that Easley would have known such as the senior officers and NCOs and who might have been involved in the recovery.
He then volunteered, without a real question from me, “There weren’t too many of them involved in that.”

This suggested that the number of officers and men involved in the operation, whatever it might have been, was limited. You can mount a guard, create a perimeter around something but the men standing guard are far enough away, or the object is masked in some fashion, that they don’t know what it is all about. They just know that they had been given a guard assignment on that day. Again, an interesting little piece of information, but not one that takes us to the extraterrestrial.

The next time that I talked to Easley was from the office of the Center for UFO Studies and was the last time. Since I was spending a couple of hundred dollars a month on telephone bills (back before cell phones and unlimited talk), the chance to follow up on some calls without having to pay for them was important. One of those I called was Edwin Easley. Since I didn’t have a recorder on the telephone, I took notes.

Interestingly, one of the things he said was that he didn’t remember the MPs being transferred after the event, other than the whole 1395th. In the Unit History, there is a letter in which he mentions that there had been a high turnover in the 390th Air Service Squadron. They were being transferred in large numbers. I thought, based on the letter, it was a “train the trainers” type situation. In other words, these men were now trained in dealing with atomic weapons and security and since other units were now going to become part of the atomic strike force, more trained MPs were required. Those in Roswell were transferred so that they could train other MPs at other bases in the procedures related to atomic weapons.

He also said that the material had been sent to Dayton, but then, there is the FBI document which made that suggestion back in 1947. This does not take us to the extraterrestrial. It merely means that the debris, whatever it might have been, was sent to Dayton and the Air Materiel Command for identification as far as he knew. Easley said that this had been a verbal order from Colonel Blanchard, the 509th commander, which would be a little unusual, but not overwhelming so. Paperwork to cover the flight could be created later.

The shipment to Dayton also fits in with some of what those who were working the balloon projects had said about the events in 1947. They had been asked to identify the debris that came from Roswell, according to them. It might have been from one of their balloon projects that was responsible. Easley said nothing about balloon projects.

The Roswell Guest House. Photo copyright by
Kevin Randle.
Easley also said that Brazel had been brought to the base for several days. Easley was not involved in the interrogation of him. He just said that Brazel had been held in the guest house, which is not as bad as being in jail, but if you’re not allowed to leave, it is sort of, the same thing.

He also said that all the paperwork had been sent on to the Pentagon, though I confess, I’m not sure what all that paperwork might have been. Patrick Saunders, the base adjutant in 1947, did tell family members that they had been able to bury the paperwork on all of this. Neither of these points leads to the extraterrestrial.

At the end of the conversation is where I asked him the one important question. I asked if we, meaning Don Schmitt and me, were following the right path. He asked, “What do you mean?”

I said, “We think it was extraterrestrial.”

Easley said, “Let me put it this way, it’s not the wrong path.”

This is the one point in which we moved from the terrestrial to the alien. It is actually the only point in my interviews with Easley that anything like that had come up. Since I was the one talking with him, and I was listening carefully to him, there is little doubt about what he meant.

But let’s look back on some of this. I’d made it a point to mention that I was a fellow military officer and that I had been a pilot in the Army and an intelligence officer in the Air Force. I told him that one of the things that I found funny was that when I went to Dayton, to Wright-Patterson AFB to meet General Exon, we had gone to lunch at the officer’s club. Exon had told me to park in one of the three spots reserved for general officers.

I had built up a rapport with Easley. He was comfortable talking to me and I was careful to keep the conversation light. We had talked about keeping secrets, and at one point he asked me what I would do in his position. I told him, frankly, that I like to think I would have shared the information, but I told him that I probably wouldn’t. The oath took precedence over what feelings I might have about telling what I knew to those who wanted to know but had no authorization to know it.

I had asked him again that if I knew a general who had been involved in some fashion, who had talked to us, and who had, at one time, been the base commander at Wright-Patterson, would that be helpful. He didn’t think so and I think he knew that the base commander was not necessarily the senior officer on the base. He functioned more as the mayor of a city, overseeing the daily operations that would have included policing the base, maintenance of the facilities and the like. In the Army, they now call that the “Mayor’s Cell.”

In those discussions with Easley, I got the impression he wanted to help as much as he could without violating what he thought of as his promise to the president. No, as I say, I don’t think he actually talked to Harry Truman, but to a representative of Truman, which is, sort of, the same thing.

He didn’t give away much, and I think that most of what he said wasn’t what he considered to be part of the great secret, whatever that great secret might have been. The only slip was the comment that “There weren’t too many involved in that.”

When I asked about following the right path and he mentioned that it wasn’t the wrong path, that was the closest that he came to giving away anything important. Again, in was in the context of a larger conversation that dealt with some of the trivia about Roswell. We had been talking about Brazel being on the base. I believe that he wanted to help as much as he could without violating the oath, which explains the wide-ranging conversations we had which only, occasionally, touched on important, relevant topics.

This explains why I hadn’t made transcripts of these conversations. There are only one or two things that are relevant and the rest were just talks between two former Air Force officers… true, he retired in 1962 and I wasn’t commissioned into the Air Force until some thirteen or fourteen years later, but we did have the bond. I guess it was more of a link than a real bond.

A couple of other things to come out of this. I asked him, at the beginning of each conversation, how he was doing. He always said, “Fine” or “Pretty good.” Can’t believe how those statements have become relevant in the world today.

And I always asked if I had additional questions, would it be all right to call back, and being the gracious individual he was, he always said, “Sure.”

When all is said and done, there isn’t much here for any of us. Clearly, as we all know, something happened. There was an event that was classified. Some of the people at the base were involved and others were not. Easley, as one of the senior officers and the provost marshal, was one of those who were. He only said one thing to me that suggests that the event was extraterrestrial, and that was his round about comment that it was not the wrong path. Not really an admission of much of anything.

If we wish to plug in the statement that comes from Dr. Granik, we have to remember it is, at best, second hand. At worse, it’s probably third hand. If he was not in the room when Easley said, “Oh, the creatures,” then he heard it from family members. He had a professional relationship with one of Easley’s daughters who worked in the same hospital as he did. And please don’t read anything into the comment about professional relationship. I mean that they knew each other, might have taken a lunch together, but had only that professional relationship. I know how the minds of those in the UFO community work… or in reality, disfunction.

I will also note that I have been rejecting, in the last ten years or so, this type of second-hand testimony because it is, well, second hand. Doesn’t mean it is wrong or inaccurate, it just means that there is no way to verify the validity of it, we can’t ask the original source, and what they thought they heard might not have been what was actually said.

I am a little annoyed that Edwin Easley’s reputation had been muddied up slightly. I don’t think he did anything to deserve that and I have said as much in the comments section of the posting found at:


The original source of those comments has been caught lying about all sorts of things. Add to it his confusion between the family of Curry Holden and Edwin Easley, we can reject all that he said about this. Especially when it is remembered that he never talked with Easley.

That leaves back where we started, which is, there isn’t a lot here on which to hang a hat. A couple of comments that can be interpreted in a number of ways and one that suggests, indirectly, the extraterrestrial. In the great scheme of the world, I know that Easley’s one comment doesn’t carry much weight. To make it worse, it was the one time that I didn’t record the conversation. I planned to follow up on it, didn’t know that the time was running out, and tried to arrange things too late. He became ill not long after we talked.

That’s where we are here. An interesting comment, heard only by me and no way to prove he said it. I have my notes, but that doesn’t really do us much good because, as we have seen way too often, notes can be whatever the writer wants them to be.

Easley tells us something happened, some of the personnel on the base were involved, but he doesn’t give away very much. It proves he was an honorable man, trying to keep the secret but wanting to help me in my research. It doesn’t prove much of anything else, when you look at it dispassionately.

48 comments:

09rja said...

"Second, he said that he had promised the president that he wouldn’t talk about it. Does that mean he talked to Harry Truman personally, or did Truman send a representative to Roswell to learn what those officers knew and tell them that it wasn’t something they could talk about openly. I believe that Easley told the president’s representative that he wouldn’t talk about it."~KRandle

You don't know if Easley talked to Harry Truman personally or a representative....but you accept it was one of them? Ok.

The last recorded conversation was on August 13, 1990. It was a wide-ranging conversation that wasn’t really an interview. In fact, the first ten or fifteen minutes was just that, conversation. I did mention that we, meaning Don Schmitt and I, might be down in Fort Worth and wondered if we might stop by. He said, “Fine by me.”~KRandle

So just so there is no misunderstanding.....when did he (ultimately) turn down this face to face interview request (i.e. the date)? (If you've said before: my bad.)

I am a little annoyed that Edwin Easley’s reputation had been muddied up slightly. I don’t think he did anything to deserve that and I have said as much in the comments section of the posting found at.........

The original source of those comments has been caught lying about all sorts of things.
~KRandle

Nobody has attempted to do that. Even the "original source" (and he actually wasn't who I named) didn't either. Point out to me in the "original source['s]" book where he trashes Easley. He does't. He simply calls into question the guy's state (and memory) based (in part) on his health at the time. He was (after all) dead within a year and a half of telling you that you were on the right path. (Whatever that means.)

Nobody is trashing the guy. Given the track record on this thing....some corroboration is in order. Dr. Granik doesn't quite cut it because he didn't treat Easley for his cancer nor was he a neurologist. (It also sounds like he didn't see Edwin himself that much. Just his daughter.)

couldbebetter said...

I think your interviews with Easley proves that military secrets can be kept. Easley shows
us that sometimes an officer's word is indeed his bond. Perhaps he simply held himself to
a much higher standard. Let's hope that whatever the reason for the secrecy that ultimately
there was (or is) a very good reason for it. Kevin, if it was you who was asked by a POTUS
(or his rep) to keep a secret (legally and legitimately) my belief is that you would, and
apparently, so did Easley. Good article!

John Steiger said...

According to Roswell UFO investigators, Easley importantly confirmed that Mac Brazel was kept prisoner on the base for about a week. [Query: Why?] Easley also confirmed in writing that there was a crash site west of Highway 285 in Chaves County (other than the Foster Ranch debris field in Lincoln County) in July 1947. Rickett placed Easley at the Chaves County impact site, in charge of MPs guarding the site and access road thereto. Rickett specifically recalled Easley's presence because Easley and Cavitt laughed at Rickett when Rickett tried to bend a nearly two foot square piece of debris - very thin and lightweight - over his knee, but could not.

Adam S. said...

I'm a little confused about his promise to Harry Truman that he would not tell anyone. If he was under a security oath and it was classified, than he COULDNT tell anyone. Period. Not unless he wanted to lose his rank, his job, his savings, and whatever else the penalty carried in 1947.

I guess my point is that this part of the account seems strange. Why would the president politely ask him to keep a secret when the president knows he legally HAS to keep the secret anyway.

As such, I wonder if Easley exaggerated this part to make his account sound more important.

Paul Young said...

Excellent article Kevin.

Brian Bell said...

Thanks this is helpful.

If Truman actually sent a representative, civilian. Government, or military, wouldn’t there be documentation on this? Somewhere there would be a paper trail showing Truman personally requested someone to travel to Roswell at or shortly after this incident occurred.

The documentation should exist even though it doesn’t have to state the purpose of the visit.

However, what if Easely was simply saying, “I took an oath of secrecy when I received my security classification, that is I was sworn to uphold that oath to my country and hence the President, in all areas related to my job”.

In this case, his statement about the President is not really significant at all.

KRandle said...

09rja -

Technically, he never turned down a face to face interview. I had sent a copy of my book to him as a courtesy. On January 9, 1991, I received a nice letter from one of his daughters telling me that he was terminally ill. At that point I wrote back, thanked her for her kind letter and mentioned that I didn't want to intrude on this private time. So, we never got the meeting arranged. As I mentioned, I didn't realize that there had been an urgency to all of this. Had I been able to predict the future, I would have done a few things differently.

But, let me point out here, that this investigation was not a full time job, I wasn't being compensated for the research expenses, and I had other things to be done. What almost everyone seems to forget is that my UFO research was done when I had the time and the money to pursue it. Had it been my "real" job, I certainly would have done things differently because I could have devoted all my time to it.

KRandle said...

John -

The only document that I have, written by Easley says, "This is information on the 1947 incident north of Roswell... Being sworn to secrecy, I could not and did not give up any information..."

And yes, I should have mentioned this in the text of the article, so thanks for getting me to look a little deeper into my notes and files.

cda said...

Kevin:

This matter of the president (or a representative thereof): Why would Truman or his representative make a visit to the Roswell base at all? Have you heard from any other witness involved in this case that Truman's rep ever paid such a visit? It was quite unnecessary since the top AF personnel at the base can handle things like top secrecy and that sort of thing, as Adam S. has said above. There would be absolutely no need for any 'representative' from Washington to go down there.

You seem, on the one hand, to want to accept what Easley told you yet on the other hand, can't fathom the meaning of what he said.

I put it to you that Easley had read or heard something about the case before you spoke to him and confabulated his involvement but got confused and gave, in effect, meaningless and useless responses.

I presume you never asked him if he had read THE ROSWELL INCIDENT. Had he?

KRandle said...

Brian -

Easley said, expressly, that he had promised the president that he wouldn't talk about it. There is no real confusion here... except that it is clear that Truman did not travel to Roswell.

CDA -

The Roswell Incident does not come into play here. It is irrelevant. HOWEVER, I will note that he had seen the Unsolved Mysteries episode that aired in September 1989. My first interview with him was January 11, 1990. You made draw your own biased conclusion from that.

09rja said...

"On January 9, 1991, I received a nice letter from one of his daughters telling me that he was terminally ill. At that point I wrote back, thanked her for her kind letter and mentioned that I didn't want to intrude on this private time. So, we never got the meeting arranged.~KRandle

So at some point within 6 months of your (phone) interview with him he finds out he is terminally ill. To me, that definitely calls into question his health at the point you talked. (And he was dead a year after that letter.)

"But, let me point out here, that this investigation was not a full time job, I wasn't being compensated for the research expenses, and I had other things to be done. "~KRandle

Fair enough. Nobody is blaming you. But at the same time....I can't do much with Easley's statements and testimony as they stand now.

John Steiger said...

Dr. Randle (Kevin): My reference "Easley also confirmed in writing that there was a crash site west of Highway 285" should be amended to "Easley also confirmed in writing the location north of Roswell" which in THE TRUTH ABOUT THE UFO CRASH AT ROSWELL, references "a location no more than forty miles almost due north of Roswell (p. 180), which is the same location in Chaves County both Bill Rickett and Chester Barton indicated. Apologies for the confusion.

KRandle said...

09rja -

The terminal nature of Easley's health did not affect his mental ability. You have pointed to an article in Saucer Smear that suggested he was not lucid, but other than pointing to Saucer Smear, you have offered nothing else. We can do nothing to validate that claim. In fact, you mentioned that if you remembered correctly, which means, of course, you memory might be in error. This is certainly not evidence of anything at all.

You mentioned that your grandmother, because of the meds she was on, was less than lucid. I cared for my mother for weeks before she died, and she was lucid to the end, regardless of meds.

My father was lucid to the end regardless of his meds until he fell into a coma before he died.

As I have said, you are free to reject the Easley interviews for any reason you wish, but to this point you have offered nothing to prove that Easley was not lucid. His family said he was and Dr. Granik said he was, and in my interactions with him, there was no indication that he was not lucid.

09rja said...

"The terminal nature of Easley's health did not affect his mental ability."~Krandle

We really have no proof of that....as we do not know what medicines he was taking.

"You have pointed to an article in Saucer Smear that suggested he was not lucid, but other than pointing to Saucer Smear, you have offered nothing else. We can do nothing to validate that claim. In fact, you mentioned that if you remembered correctly, which means, of course, you memory might be in error. This is certainly not evidence of anything at all."~KRandle

Neither is this story. His actual "admission" isn't much either. (But I was taking it to where they buffs want to go with it. Going beyond the usual shell games.)

You mentioned that your grandmother, because of the meds she was on, was less than lucid. I cared for my mother for weeks before she died, and she was lucid to the end, regardless of meds.~KRandle

It really depends on the meds one is on. And since we don't know what he [Easley] was on.....that leaves us back at square one.

His family said he was and Dr. Granik said he was, and in my interactions with him, there was no indication that he was not lucid.~KRandle

We've been around that track a few times already: Granik was not treating him for his cancer and he was not a neurologist. Nor is there any proof that he saw Easley regularly. (Apparently Granik knew his daughter best of all of them. And apparently she is the only Easley family member you spoke to after he fell ill.)

cda said...

BB:

You are quite right. During the course of their protracted Roswell and MJ-12 investigations Stanton Friedman & Bill Moore made extensive researches of the Truman library. Friedman was at pains to show this, that and the other and how Truman's activities in 1947 fitted well (so he claimed) with what he (Friedman) and Moore already knew about Roswell. NEVER ONCE, to my knowledge, did Truman's diaries reveal anything about a visit to Roswell during summer '47, or indeed at any other time. Nor did any 'representative' make such a visit. And Friedman in particular was always precise and emphatic when he discovered documentation on such things.

So, did Easley make up the story or simply get confused by it all? Draw your own conclusions.

KRandle said...

09rja -

It's come back around to me but since you have no evidence at all, and reject the observations of those who interacted with him, then there is nothing more to be accomplished. Your inaccurate opinion is your opinion.

CDA -

You assume that Truman's representative must have been someone of such importance that his movements would be documented. But, what if, the representative was a member of the secret service, acting at the request of the president but traveling as a civilian. Then you'd have no paper trail...

Or, what if, the representative was a military officer, one of the military aides who surround the president, traveling on a routine training flight into Roswell. No real record there either.

And, let's not forget that Patrick Saunders mentioned that they had been able to bury the paper trail because, a training flight in cross county operations would be a training flight. If they carried a couple of passengers, who would really pay attention.

So, will you continue to make up stuff as if it has some validity or will you realize that not everything operates they way you think it should.

09rja said...

"It's come back around to me but since you have no evidence at all, and reject the observations of those who interacted with him, then there is nothing more to be accomplished. Your inaccurate opinion is your opinion".~KRndle

"Those who interacted with him" were not properly questioned.....nor is there a real time line. This whole thing has always suffered from (no offense) amateur investigating. You can't run with a incomplete job.

By the way, is there any reason my post(s) are not being made on the 'Thomas DuBose and the Switched Roswell Debris' thread? Nobody has indicated that it is closed and I'm not trying to post anything offensive.

Brian Bell said...

@ Kevin

The fact that you actually documented Easley had watched the Unsolved Mysteries “Roswell” episode almost guarantees that he was influenced in some way by that broadcast.

Here’s why:

In a concise and popular way that TV episode made a good case that Roswell was indeed a flying saucer crash. While many of the people interviewed in that show have since been shown to have lied and/or confabulated false information, that wasn’t the case in 1989. Because he watched that episode, I can see why Easely (at that time) may have come to believe that it really was ET.

His whole supposed “I saw the little people” story (that he told one of his daughters but oddly not you) is literally taken right out of the interviews in that TV show!

For all we know, Easely came to the conclusion that it WAS an alien craft because he saw this episode.

But here’s the real kicker that supports the idea that he was influenced by that content—the date of your first reported interview with Edwin Easley precisely fits the timeframe of the air date of the “Roswell” episode! It even precedes it!

The original air date for the Unsolved Mysteries “Roswell” episode was September 28, 1989.

In UFO Crash at Roswell, you and Schmitt both claim that you had interviewed Easley for the very FIRST time in October, 1989 (over the phone).

In your book, however, there was no mention of the January 11, 1990 interview, which you later stated was the first one you audiotaped by phone, followed by June 23, 1990, and finally the last one on August 23, 1990.

So if your very first discussion with him was in October 1989—right after Easely had been exposed to the Unsolved Mysteries “Roswell” content—we have a mere “couple of weeks” between his exposure to that content followed immediately by your initial discussion with him.

As far as I understand it, these are the dates which you published for when you actually had discussions with him.

Clearly he was influenced by that TV show. Unsolved Mysteries was the 11th highest rated TV show in 1989 according to Nielsen.

SugarRayTaylor said...

Seeings as Kevin has been honest and upfront about his opinion regarding Roswell as it stands today, then I don’t see why there should be so much back and forth over Easley’s comments. It’s not like Easley was doing the usual UFO circuit tour and making all kinds of suspect comments.
Anyway.....
Kevin, I’m sure you are aware of Walter Bosley’s claim about his father and the events at Roswell. How does his claim hold up to the current opinion you have? Do you find any credibility at all in his claims? Personally, the story he tells has never sounded right to me. Is it all nonsense? With everything you know regarding Roswell right now, such as Easleys comments, does his tale make any sense?

Paul Young said...

You know...the entertainment value of this blog is priceless, so thanks, KR, for offering it for free.

cda... I have to wonder about you sometimes.

Where is this "utopia" you reside in where every military meeting that takes place must have minutes taken...and then painstakingly filed...in order that every man and his dog can then, at a later date, have them opened and scrutinised?

Where is this "utopia" where no General or Admiral (or any officer to a subordinate) can give a verbal order...it has always to be recorded in writing. (So that, once again,... it is painstakingly filed...in order that every man and his dog can then, at a later date, have them opened and scrutinised?)

Paul Young said...

anonymous... By your reckoning, we can't believe a word that anyone says before they die, because they are obviously unsound of mind...not just a few days before death but (like in Easley's case) even " within a year and a half" of death?

This might be true for YOUR family (sorry to hear about your nana, BTW)...but not of everyone's, I can assure you.

But as a gentle word of warning; If talking nonsense before death is a family trait of yours, then you'd better seriously consider seeing your solicitor and getting your "will" sorted out.

Capt Steve said...

A couple of quick points:

- my father worked in a Special Weapons unit in the early 50's, and he never revealed the nature of the unit's work. Ever. People in that era took their security oaths seriously.

- The President of the United States is the Commander in Chief of the United States armed forces. Service members sometimes use "I promised the President" *as a figure of speech* when discussing security clearances/oaths. It does NOT mean that they actually met the President or a representative of the President and in my opinion pursuing this line of reasoning (trying to find the President's schedule, tracking down his aides, and then declaring the witness a liar when neither investigation matches the witness' testimony) is spurious at best.

- That being said, I'm puzzled as to why Easley spoke with Kevin at all. Was he playing the "I've got a secret" game, or was there more to his motivation? It would have made more sense for Easley not to have said anything at all...

09rja said...

"But as a gentle word of warning; If talking nonsense before death is a family trait of yours, then you'd better seriously consider seeing your solicitor and getting your "will" sorted out."~Paul Young

It has nothing to do with the person.....some of those pain meds can put you on cloud 9. I trust you have seen the warning labels on meds that advise not to [insert a million things here, including driving] while on them.

Life experience (as well as not doing your homework) is a common trait (since we are on that subject) of UFO buffs.

09rja said...

"You know...the entertainment value of this blog is priceless, so thanks, KR, for offering it for free."~Paul Young

You got that right. It's funny watching the logic used by people like you.

A sample of some of your top stumbles:

1. You falsely claimed that the leaks in the Manhattan Project were counter Intel.

2. You falsely claimed that the Manhattan Project was successfully concealed (despite the program being completely infiltrated by the KGB from day one).

3. You cannot name a single thing of this magnitude/a game changer that any government has successfully concealed for a long time.

4. You obviously have no clue about how Intel agencies work.

5. You obviously are not particularly well read about such cover ups/scandals.

Not only entertaining....down right illustrative of the issues in this field. (And why it has the credibility issues it has.)

cda said...

Paul Young:

There is no 'utopia' that you refer to.

There is, however, an idea strongly promoted by Kevin and others, that an ET visit was made to planet earth in the summer of 1947 and that the military have covered it up ever since. Because of the highly unusual nature of such an event, I would expect a large paper trail to exist of this event and all its follow-ups and subsequent meetings. One aspect of this paper trail is the President himself.

In other words, there ought to be (and certainly would be) a large paper trail going right up to Truman. If someone comes along and tells us decades afterwards that he swore to the President or his representative that he would NEVER divulge what he knew about this event, then he should do just that - keep his mouth shut!

And I would indeed expect a great deal of documentation on every aspect of the case. Instead we have zilch, not a single paper anywhere, on the discovery of ET intelligent life as happened in 1947.

Brian Bell is absolutely correct in this case. Easley watching that TV show just before Kevin spoke to him is a total giveaway. I first assumed Easley had read THE ROSWELL INCIDENT, but maybe I was wrong. It hardly matters now anyway.

No there may not be any paper trail if Easley's evidence only refers to some secret USAF project. But there certainly would be a vast such trail if Easley was referring to a genuine ET crash on earth.

SugarRayTaylor said...

Captain Steve, I’m sure Kevin is well aware of how people talk in the Military and the context of how they are said, being a Vietnam and Iraq veteran. He was also an intelligence officer at one point also, I believe.

KRandle said...

Okay, Sports Fans -

09rja - You have no idea if those who interacted with him were properly questioned or not. You are making an assumption based on your opinion with no fact to back it up. On the other hand, you mentioned a half-remembered item in Saucer Smear that you seem to believe holds the correct information but until and unless you can produce it (or one of those who visit here produces it) we have no way to vet it and can reject it as worthless. Once the item is found, then we can determine if the information contained there is useful.

I can, of course, produce a timeline of my interactions, and those of some of the others, but it simply not worth the effort since anything I say here will be rejected because, as we know, those who are ill cannot be relied on to be of sound mind.

Finally, I am under no obligation to publish any comments on this blog. I warned you and Paul Young that the endless discussion about keeping of government secrets would be ended. I am totally uninterested in what secrets from the Crimean War have been hidden since the mid-19th century.

So, if you have something new to contribute to this conversation, let's end here it. I am tired of the drumbeat of we don't know what meds he was on, Dr. Granik was not an oncologist, and the family is apparently not qualified to comment on the state of Easley's mental ability. I've tried to be patient, I have answered the questions and provided dispassionate explanations of the information.

BTW: I tried a couple of other sources looking for the Easley (Granik) information and failed to find it. My run of Saucer Smear is incomplete because I was never a non-subscriber so Moseley didn't copy me on every issue.

Brian - You have no evidence that Easley was adversely influenced by the Unsolved Mysteries episode, but I knew when I published the information, someone would bring that up. There was nothing about Easley that suggested he was so mentally weak that he would be influenced by a TV show... which isn't to say he wasn't, only that I saw and heard no evidence of it.

I too, caught that October 1989 date and went back through the tapes and the transcripts, and can't find anything. I do have an interview conducted with Joe Briley on October 20, 1989, which might explain the confusion. At any rate, I have nothing to suggest the date in UFO Crash at Roswell. It is in error.

However, Easley never said he saw little people. What he said, as reported by Dr. Granik (which makes it second hand at best), was "Oh the creatures." I didn't hear him say.

He was not "clearly" influence by Unsolved Mysteries." There is that possibility which in not the same thing.

Captain Steve - While your point about the president being the commander-in-chief and soldiers sometimes saying that "I promised the president," as a figure of speech is interesting, I say I never heard anyone say anything like that. My impression was that it was an actual promise relied to the president, and we do have some testimony suggesting that a secret service agent was sent into Roswell.

You could ask why any of these guys spoke to us. Easley was too polite to hang up. True, he could have asked my not to bother him again when I asked if it was all right to call him with additional questions, but he didn't. There are only two or three people who absolutely refused to talk to us... and one who claimed he hadn't been in Roswell when the events happened but we had documentation to prove otherwise.

09rja said...

Finally, I am under no obligation to publish any comments on this blog. I warned you and Paul Young that the endless discussion about keeping of government secrets would be ended. I am totally uninterested in what secrets from the Crimean War have been hidden since the mid-19th century.~KRandle

Too bad that's not the thread I'm talking about. We were discussing the (likely) hundreds of thousands (if not millions) who would have been involved in such a reverse engineering project. (For which I tried to post a pretty good manpower estimate.) For this many people to be silent is frankly hard to swallow.

So, if you have something new to contribute to this conversation, let's end here it. I am tired of the drumbeat of we don't know what meds he was on, Dr. Granik was not an oncologist, and the family is apparently not qualified to comment on the state of Easley's mental ability. I've tried to be patient, I have answered the questions and provided dispassionate explanations of the information.

Fair enough....but I'll sign off with: you didn't interview Easley's whole family. (Especially after he got ill.)

cda said...

What conclusion are readers supposed to draw from Easley's evidence? Either his phone testimony or face-to-face testimony. Either on this blog or that appearing in Randle's books. Are the pro-ET brigade impressed by it or not? As regards Roswell I do not believe I have ever read any testimony by a so-called 'witness' that is more worthless than that given by Provost Marshal Edwin Easley. But some people (I guess) think otherwise.

SugarRayTaylor said...

Kevin, did Easley see the Unsolved Mysteries episode? Because in a previous blog post I asked a question regarding if Easley was aware of what the other witnesses had said, to which you answered that he wasn’t aware of what they said.

Brian Bell said...

Well I guess Kevin can be excused of the October 1989 “error” which appears in his book. I know Kevin is meticulous about such errors but it does seem they crop up frequently in his and other books. I’m not judging, just pointing it out.

Even so, NO ONE here IMO is or has attempted to tarnish Easley’s personal reputation. All we’re doing is pointing out that his testimony isn’t really helpful at all, and it proves almost nothing. It just proves he was willing to talk about the incident — whether he knew anything or not is anybody’s guess.

Although the date of the Unsolved Mysteries “Roswell” episode doesn’t match what Kevin originally published in his book, the fact Easley did say he saw the program BEFORE Kevin interviewed him (about a year later) still must be factored into his testimony.

KRandle said...

Brian -

You really should be careful when you begin to toss stones. I would like to see you control that much information that includes documents, interviews, and input from a co-writer. I note that sometimes the information supplied by a source, or even written in a document is in error and the writer doesn't learn about it until later... or editors, copy editors and proof readers sometime change the meaning of sentences without realizing the change is wrong, or information that believe to be accurate from an outside source is inaccurate. My favorite example is of an editor who told me that the M-79 grenade launcher had not been available in Vietnam in 1969. He knew this because a friend had told him. Made no difference that I had seen M-79s all over Vietnam in 1969... his friend, who had not been there knew better.

Actually the paragraph to which you refer, and which might have been written with more clarity, suggests that I had talked to the witness in October 1989, not that the Unsolved Mysteries she had seen had been broadcast in October. More to the point, however, is that September 1989 is not about a year later since I first talked to him in January 1990...

And I did forget one other interview (well a single question) I had addressed to him after April 1990. John Keel had just published his balloon bomb explanation and I called about a dozen people to ask them if what they had seen or knew suggested a balloon to them. Easley was one of those I called... I just wrote down their answers.

KRandle said...

CDA (and others) -

Easley just confirmed for us that something crashed, and the response to that crash was out of the ordinary. His one comment to me, about not following the wrong path, is indicative of alien visitation but by no means an outstanding statement. If I had it on tape, I might push a little harder on this, but since I only have notes... then no.

Easley confirms Brazel held on the base. He confirms that what was found was something of importance. At that the normal security oaths were strengthened by a specific request. None of this gets us to the extraterrestrial... only that something happened.

KRandle said...

09rja -

Well, those are the only ones that I rejected for publication that I received. You did bring it up on this post, so I answered here.

You speculation about the numbers involved in reverse engineering, are nothing but idle speculation. And, if you provide a scientist with, say, a small bit of metal and ask for an analysis of the composition, then you really haven't given away much of a secret if he or she doesn't know where the sample originated... especially true if the alloy or composition of the metal can be found on Earth and it is the combination elements or process in making that sample are something not seen before. Would the first thought be that it came from an alien craft.

Nope. Didn't interview the whole family. How many of them would be a representative sample?

09rja said...

"You speculation about the numbers involved in reverse engineering, are nothing but idle speculation. And, if you provide a scientist with, say, a small bit of metal and ask for an analysis of the composition, then you really haven't given away much of a secret if he or she doesn't know where the sample originated...~KRandle

There are endless numbers of tests to be done. Everything from wave propagation, electrical resistivity, chemical analysis, strength properties (i.e. elasticity, etc) and so on. And that's just with the material. Then it's on to energy and that's just for starters. You don't get all that done sitting on your hands with no people. The Manhattan Project had 130,000 people on it (with the physics largely figured out). The number of people on this would likely equal that (if not exceed it). And over 70 years with the kind of turn over in R&D projects (ask Stanton Friedman on that if you don't believe me: he was a contractor on classified projects for periods as short as 3 months).....we are talking hundreds of thousands if not millions by this point. And not one credible person has surfaced in all that time. (And no: Bob Lazar doesn't fall into the credible category.)

"Nope. Didn't interview the whole family. How many of them would be a representative sample?"~KRandle

For this kind of revelation? As many as possible. I'd say four at minimum. And most importantly: the interview should have been about his condition when he spoke to you and immediately after that. About all I'm hearing about is the eye doctor and the daughter.

Dominick said...

Actually, Kevin, I think that you are being overly cautions (I understand why) with your comments on Easley's retort to your crashed alien spacecraft hypothetical. After all, think about it: There are dozens of possible "paths" to an answer to what happened at Roswell. Yet Easley asserted that you were "not on the wrong path" with your ET hypothesis. Thus the one path you DID suggest (out of many other possible ones) he agreed was not necessarily the wrong path. Combine that with maintaining a secrecy oath for decades about an event that was clearly significant, and we have reasonably strong first-hand support if (and it's a big if) Easley is being candid, for an ET event.

KRandle said...

09rja -

The man was an eye surgeon and a trained MD. I've mentioned one daughter, but have spoken to the wife and another of the daughters. And frankly, I wasn't inclined to bother them very soon after her husband and their father's death. I talked to as many as I could and coordinated the information with other members of Blanchard's staff, all of whom corroborated various parts of the story... not only things mentioned by Easley, but by others. The only member of the staff who flatly refused to talk about this, or who suggested it wasn't important was Colonel Robert Barrowclough who was the executive officer. On June 15, 1997, he sent a note to Kent Jeffrey that said, "Thank you for a copy of the UFO Journal [MUFON UFO Journal] on the Roswell myth. Maybe some of those crack pots will quit calling me up and say I'm covering up a deep gov't secret. You pretty well covered the subject."

And since this post was about Edwin Easley and not about reverse engineering, I will not post any additional speculations about this here, or after a couple of other posts. Both you and Paul Young have been going back and forth and the responses are scattered in too many directions for any of us to follow the discussion. Maybe I'll put up something about reverse engineering and the creation of an oversight committee to exploit the find and let the two of you have all the fun you can.

KRandle said...

09rja -

Oh, I forgot o mention... You still haven't provided any evidence that Easley was not lucid to the very end. All you can tell me is that you might have read it in Saucer Smear. I think it only fair that you provide something better than you think it was in Saucer Smear. Without the reference, we have no way to validate the claim. If you can't trace it, and if no one here volunteers the exact statement, I don't see how we'll ever reach common ground.

09rja said...

"The man was an eye surgeon and a trained MD.~KRandle

That's great but we don't know how often he was seeing Easley by this point.

"I've mentioned one daughter, but have spoken to the wife and another of the daughters. And frankly, I wasn't inclined to bother them very soon after her husband and their father's death."~KRandle

So if I follow this correctly: you did not establish his condition (with them) at the time frame he spoke to you. (Except with the one daughter and the eye doctor.)

I talked to as many as I could and coordinated the information with other members of Blanchard's staff, all of whom corroborated various parts of the story... not only things mentioned by Easley, but by others.~KRandle

The ET part of his story?

"And since this post was about Edwin Easley and not about reverse engineering, I will not post any additional speculations about this here, or after a couple of other posts."~KRandle

Fair enough. It's your blog. But I question the notion that there would not have been a massive reverse engineering effort. After all, this was in the middle of the Cold War. The first thing that would have crossed the minds of the people in charge is: Will the next one come down on the USSR? It would have been a race in their minds. (As was most things in the Cold War.)

It's also worth noting the way the government spent money on R&D in this time frame. (Ask Stanton Friedman about some of the projects he was on.)

"Oh, I forgot o mention... You still haven't provided any evidence that Easley was not lucid to the very end. All you can tell me is that you might have read it in Saucer Smear.

And I'll tell you again: I don't need the Saucer Smear article to take issue with this story (as CDA and Brian Bell have noted as well). And you cannot prove he was completely healthy at the point these interviews happened either.

Like a lot of evidence in this: it's highly questionable and always just out of reach.

cda said...

As I said above, I cannot see that Easley told Kevin anything useful at all. In fact, to put it politely, Easley seems to have taken a number of interviews to say that he had nothing to say. OK, so he tried to help but in the end he flunked it.

Brian Bell said...

Kevin,

I’m not throwing stones. Simply saying if we go back to look at dates from your previous writing, and they are in error (for whatever reasons), it’s not helping any of us. You cleared it up. Yes of course some errors in books do occur. As far as the dates go, yes my error — As you say, it would have been shorter than a year if your first interview was January 1990 NOT October 1989. So personally I believe the influence factor from that Unsolved Mysteries episode is still in play.

Brian Bell said...

Regarding this:

“The only member of the staff who flatly refused to talk about this, or who suggested it wasn't important was Colonel Robert Barrowclough who was the executive officer. On June 15, 1997, he sent a note to Kent Jeffrey that said, "Thank you for a copy of the UFO Journal [MUFON UFO Journal] on the Roswell myth. Maybe some of those crack pots will quit calling me up and say I'm covering up a deep gov't secret. You pretty well covered the subject."

Well that sort of says a lot, don’t you think? Or are we going to hear from supporters that the Colonel was really “misdirecting” from the truth on purpose?

It seems to me that when we have Roswell witnesses that claim nothing really important happened, their testimony is largely not considered relevant or it’s tossed aside as though it’s “all part of the grand coverup of alien visitation”!

Nitram Ang said...

BB wrote:

"It seems to me that when we have Roswell witnesses that claim nothing really important happened, their testimony is largely not considered relevant or it’s tossed aside as though it’s “all part of the grand coverup of alien visitation”!"

Equally valid is the comment:

"It seems to me that when we have Roswell witnesses that claim something really important happened, their testimony is largely not considered relevant or it’s tossed aside as though alien visitation is not possible!"

09rja said...

"Equally valid is the comment:

"It seems to me that when we have Roswell witnesses that claim something really important happened, their testimony is largely not considered relevant or it’s tossed aside as though alien visitation is not possible!"
~Nitram Ang

Yeah except for one important thing: I don't see anyone (including myself) saying alien visitation isn't possible. The credibility of the Roswell "witnesses" is what is at issue.

KRandle said...

Brian -

You reference a single statement from the lone dissenting voice and place a great deal of emphasis on it. At the other end of the spectrum are the other members of Blanchard's staff who suggested that something more important happened. Seems you accept the testimony that supports your point of view and reject all the others. Is Barrowclough the only source that is credible, or has his personal bias infected his point of view... something that I'm sure you will point out for those at the other end of the spectrum.

I will also note that I'm the one who posted that testimony, have included it in books about the case, and provided Kent Jeffrey's whole paper about the Roswell myth a prominent place in The Roswell Encyclopedia.

Nitram Ang said...

"Yeah except for one important thing: I don't see anyone (including myself) saying alien visitation isn't possible. The credibility of the Roswell "witnesses" is what is at issue."

You still don't get it... Anything is possible of course and some people here don't believe in Alien visitation...

It is the credibility of the "balloon witnesses" that is the issue...

09rja said...

...and some people here don't believe in Alien visitation...~Nitram Ang

Believe it is impossible or believe it hasn't happened yet? There is an important difference.

"It is the credibility of the "balloon witnesses" that is the issue..."~Nitram Ang

Not when you compare them to the "ET" Roswell witnesses.

El Sopa Cartoons said...

“Let me put it this way, it’s not the wrong path.”
He just tried to tell you, you were in the right path to uncover what it was...that's all...
Kevin you're always super objetive, I dont know why you're thinking that was alien-related, but whatever, I guess you won't publish my comment again for some reason.