Was Major Edwin Easley responsible for his MPs terrorizing civilians? (Randle and Schmitt Truth)

 

Chapter 17: The Creatures

By Timothy Printy 1999 Updated March 2009

One of Kevin Randle’s star witnesses to the supposed crash of an alien spaceship is Major Edwin Easley, the Provost Marshal for RAAF. Randle states he interviewed Easley for the first time on January 11, 1990 using an audiotape (In UFO Crash at Roswell, they (Randle/Schmitt) supposedly interviewed Easley first in October 1989 over the phone and there was no mention of the January 11 interview). Easley did not say much according to Randle but did say he had heard about the crash and could not say anything about it because he was "sworn to secrecy" (Randle Conspiracy 218). In UFO Crash at Roswell (p. 163-4), we are treated to comments made by an anonymous source, who states the exact same thing. By all appearances these are comments made by Easley but for some reason they mask the name. The only reason to do this is to make everyone believe that there was a massive group of people on base being sworn to secrecy. This is another deception trick by the authors. Despite having him on audiotape and no mention that he wanted to remain anonymous, Easley is portrayed as some mysterious individual. Easley was interviewed in February, May, October 1990, and in February 1991 but was never taped again. As a result, we must trust Randle and Schmitt's notes on their subsequent interviews. As far as I know, Easley never signed any affidavit to these events and what he supposedly told the authors gets to be pretty wild.

In the February 1991 interview, Randle learned that Mac Brazel was at the guesthouse on base but does not say for how long. We do know that Bill Brazel said it was only for three days. Using the return of Mac of the following week, we must assume that Mac was there only for the weekend. According to Randle, Easley always gave short cryptic answers during his interviews. However, from these short and cryptic answers Randle/Schmitt attribute a wealth of details in The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell. Easley supposedly was at the crash site of the saucer from the beginning although there is no indication that Easley ever stated he was. One can only assume that Randle and Schmitt say this because Frank Kaufmann states he was there. In The Truth about the UFO Crash at Roswell, we read:

Easley ordered the MPs to face away from the ship and to watch the surrounding terrain.

No one was to approach without being identified and properly cleared...The second group scanned quite a large area looking for debris... Easley continued, saying, "It was loaded on a truck and then onto a plane [in Roswell], and it took off. Whatever they found [in the outside area]...was just odds and ends." (Randle and Schmitt Truth 11)

Despite this apparent testimony by Easley, there are no footnotes to state when he said this. Another quote attributed to Easley is concerning the mythical Thomas. He describes Thomas's team, "One was a tech sergeant and the other a master sergeant...[They were] real pros [who] knew their business. They came out with Thomas" (Randle and Schmitt Truth 12). Again, there is no footnote. However, they do footnote some statements,

They had set up a grid, and according to Easley, "Each group took a certain section and recorded everything they saw, anything unusual...marked it on the grid...[planes] flying low and taking photographs...they had a grid map they worked from...[they] then examined everything very carefully to see if they had overlooked anything." (Randle and Schmitt Truth 12)

These statements are supposed to have come from notes from the personal interviews and from the audiotaped interview! This is the same interview where Randle stated that he could not talk about it and was "sworn to secrecy". If he didn't say anything, then how did they get this information about planes and searches using a grid? Reading this footnote, we begin to realize that something is not right with the "research" and "writing" of these two Roswell authors.  Looking at these quotes it is apparent that both Randle and Schmitt have twisted statements made by Easley in order to present a certain picture. There is also the possibility that they are making these statements up since the footnote seems to be in direct contradiction with what we actually know about Easley's interview.  In either case, it is wrong and demonstrates the authors are more than willing to take liberties with the what Easley may or may not have stated.

Most important to note about the Roswell legend is that Easley had taken charge of all the MPs on base.  These are the same MPs that went out on their own terrorizing civilians and vandalizing farms/radio stations.  Did Easley ever give such an order?  One would think that Randle would have asked this question at some point but he seems to have not done so.  Why? Easley was responsible for their actions and Randle knew this.  It would make sense to see if Easley had given orders or received orders to do so. No such questions appeared to be asked because Randle probably did not want to hear Easley state that nothing like this happened or he did not want to alienate Easley by accusing him of being in charge of Gestapo-like operations.  Instead, Randle took a new and rather interesting approach to get Easley to say something he could use.

During one interview on the phone, that was not audiotaped, Randle supposedly asked Easley if they were following the right path and they think the object was extraterrestrial. According to the Randle Report, Easley is supposed to have said, "Let me put it this way. That’s not the wrong path" (Randle Randle 201). From this, Randle says that Easley admits the object was extraterrestrial! Although Easley never said it was and like a skilled lawyer, Randle manipulated the question to Easley and may even had confused him somewhat. He supposedly asked the question only once and then terminated the interview/phone call. No audiotape, no videotape, just Randle's word and nothing else. However, Randle repeats the conversation again in Conspiracy of Silence but this time Easley states, "That's the right path. You're not following the wrong one" (Randle Conspiracy 29). This is not what he was quoted as saying in the Randle Report. Which is correct? Is it possible that both versions of this interview may not be even close to what Easley really said? How many times has Randle altered the statement to make it sound more convincing? Randle spent a lot of time criticizing Shandera about his DuBose interview because it was not audio or video taped, yet he goes off and does the exact same thing with Easley! Could it be that Randle, who did not record the interview heard only what he wanted to hear. Maybe Easley said over the phone, "Let me put it this way. That’s the wrong path." Who really knows? Maybe Randle just inserted the ‘not’ to make his case.

When this was pointed out to Kevin Randle by Dennis Stacy, he pointed out that the first version was correct ("Let me put it this way. That’s not the wrong path."). Kevin then goes on to explain how it must have been altered,

Now, the two quotes (and I'm not even going to look them up) mentioned here are probably as they were in the book. So what? They say the same thing and if the editor changed one to the positive and I failed to catch it on the page proofs, well, big deal. Easley said, basically, the craft was extraterrestrial, but he didn't say it on tape and that is one of the major regrets I have because we could have ended this discussion at that point. You'll either believe he said it, or you won't. (Randle Online)

I was skeptical of Randle's excuse when I first read it.  His attitude in this response indicated he really did not care if he got the quote accurate. My experience in examining what Randle has written over the years concerning Roswell has demonstrated that he was more than willing to twist statements made by Easley and others to paint a certain picture. Therefore, this statement blaming the editor for the change did not appear accurate. Sure enough, in an email to me a decade later, Randle indicated he changed the wording because the editor had asked him to do so and he was quite aware of the change. Why would Randle, who claims to be interested in the truth, allow a statement made by a key witness altered? Perhaps Randle merely forgot what had transpired between him and the editor or, perhaps, he reworded the statement deliberately to present the evidence in a more positive light.  Randle is not going to tell anybody which is correct and we will never know the truth. However, it demonstrates that much of what Randle states regarding witness testimony that is not recorded is suspect since he can't seem to remember which versions are correct. Maybe they are fabricated or maybe he heard what he wanted to hear at the time. What is certain is this kind of testimony is highly questionable at best.  It seems to me that Randle should be careful how he criticizes people like Shandera and William Moore when they talk about their unrecorded interviews.

Even more despicable is how Randle takes the statements of Easley on his deathbed and again uses them as some sort of proof. Supposedly, Easley states on his deathbed something about "the creatures" (Randle Conspiracy 29) and "I promised the president I wouldn't talk about it" (Randle Conspiracy 219). His doctor, Harold Granik, and an unnamed daughter state this after a granddaughter asked about Roswell. Randle never heard this first hand at all and there are no records of these statements other than hearsay from these two. Even more interesting is what Kal Korff found out in an interview with Harold Granik (or is it Granich?) on July 16, 1994, "According to Easley's family, he was quite advanced in age when he spoke with Randle. His memory was failing him and Easley had a tendency to place himself in events at which he was not present" (Korff 92). Sounds like the same situation with Holden was being played out in this case.

To counter this, Kevin Randle informed me that Korff failed to mention that Granik/Granich is actually an eye doctor. Randle also pointed out that it sounded a lot like the interview with Holden as I noted above. Korff's latest antics on the internet have me confused and questioning his reliability as an author. Faced with this information, I have concluded that Korff's comments in his book regarding Granich/Granik are not very reliable. This does not change my opinion of Easley's state of mind when the story of the "creatures" popped up. One has to openly question the information obtained from a person on their deathbed at an extremely advanced age. 

What Randle and others forget is there were eight crashes in the vicinity of RAAF between 1948 and 1960 (four of which were between 1948-50), which involved fatalities. It is a very good probability that Easley was probably at one of these crashes. He could have easily switched dates and facts around years after the fact. The story seems to fit into the statements he supposedly made. Sheridan Cavitt discussed the recovery of the debris/bodies from one of these crashes:

We had bodies all over the place and it was a sad thing. We recovered some fingers, of course, there was one hell of a big fire after it happened. I collected a bunch of hands, fingers and so forth, trying to identify them. At the time I thought this was sort of stupid. They had a list back at the operation office. Other than identifying body parts so that some guy's wife would know that she had part of her, used to be, former husband.... (HQ USAF attachment 18)

Obviously, there was a massive search for remains that probably included setting up some sort of grid and cordoning off the area so civilians would not interfere with the recovery of the bodies. In one case (1956), a Specialist was flown into RAAF (now Walker AFB) for identification of the bodies. These events and Randle probing about the crash may have hit a cord with Easley. In six of these events, there were burned bodies at the crash and Easley could easily have called them "creatures" on his deathbed. What about Easley's deathbed statement that he promised the President of United States he would not tell? Randle states that he may not have spoke to the president but a representative of the president. He also adds that it would not be out of the question that a major would talk to the president because, "A Lieutenant Colonel named Doolittle suggested to a president that he could bomb Tokyo" (Randle Conspiracy 219). Randle’s version of history is about as good as his understanding of atmospheric physics! In Doolittle's autobiography I Could Never Be So Lucky Again, he never mentions seeing the president about bombing Tokyo. The idea was actually started by a Navy Captain, Francis Low and Doolittle's first time visiting the White House was when he received the Congressional Medal of Honor for the "Doolittle Raid". The "myth" about Doolittle telling the president is something Randle heard somewhere and never honestly researched before writing his book! Once again, we have an effort to deceive or "sloppy" and "inadequate" research in order for him to make a point.

Most of what Randle/Schmitt have on Easley is weak and there are no true facts. Since Randle has no record of the interviews (other than the one audiotape which states Easley was sworn to secrecy - not uncommon for a Provost marshal at a nuclear bomber base), the whole Easley story can be considered rumor, innuendo, and fabrication of facts from bits and pieces of information that may or may not have occurred in early July 1947. Randle’s statements about the "deathbed confession" are also contemptible. Randle/Schmitt seem more interested in their agenda than in being concerned for Easley's well being or to quote him fairly. In my opinion, Randle/Schmitt shamefully used Easley for their own agenda. While Easley was alive, Randle/Schmitt referred to him as an unnamed person and did not attribute much to him. After his death, they attribute all forms of statements made by him in The Truth About the UFO crash at Roswell and all the other books. One must question the integrity of these individuals when one views this process of "story telling". 

The Provost Marshal of RAAF would have to be concerned about security and military police jurisdiction on base. However, there was another branch of the Army that was separate from the base. Their boss was Sheridan Cavitt, whom we already know so much about. The Counter Intelligence Corps had the responsibility to make sure that the situation at RAAF was normal. The Sergeant’s working for Sheridan had many roles and there is one in particular, who remembers things different than Cavitt.

Works Cited

HQ USAF. The Roswell Report: Fact vs. Fiction in the New Mexico Desert. Washington: US Government, 1995.

Korff, Kal. The Roswell UFO Crash: What They Don't Want You to Know. Amherst: Prometheus, 1997.

Randle, Kevin. Conspiracy of Silence. New York: Avon Books, 1997

---. The Randle Report: UFOs in the 90s. New York: M. Evans and Company inc., 1997

---. 25 September 1998. Online posting. UFO Updates mailing list archive. 25 September 1998. Online. Internet. Available WWW: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/1998/sep/m25-026.shtml

Randle, Kevin and Donald Schmitt. The Truth About the UFO Crash at Roswell. New York: Avon, 1994. 

 

Chapter 18 - The Joker and the Spaceship

Back to Roswell 4F: Fabrications, Fumbled Facts, and Fables index

Return to Roswell: The UFO case that keeps on giving