NSA UFO Docs



Documents declassified by the NSA paint an intriguing picture of interest and activities in the UFO community. Please follow along as we cross reference files that explore UFO-related deception and establish the existence of a report on a UFO symposium authored by an NSA assignee in attendance. I'll also explain my efforts to learn more via the Freedom of Information Act. "Surprise or Deceptive Data" The January, 1997, Volume 43 of The Skeptics UFO Newsletter is available at The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry website. Its author, the late Philip

By Jack Brewer ufotrail.blogspot.com 1-24-17

J. Klass, described a batch of docs released by the NSA due to various efforts, including a lawsuit launched by Citizens Against UFO Secrecy (CAUS). I point out the work of Klass because not only did he discuss the docs we're going to explore, but primarily because he speculated about the possible author of some of the NSA material. Klass suspected Tom Deuley, a long time MUFON director and former NSA employee, was "almost certainly" involved in compiling a portion of the information held by the NSA. I bring this up not to be overly conspiratorial, but because I find the chain of events interesting, and I suspect some of you will agree. To try to be clear, please allow me to emphasize it is not news that Deuley was employed by the NSA or that he discussed the UFO community with his employer, but it warrants mention in relation to the following material.

A declassified doc available on the NSA site is a draft titled, UFO's and the Intelligence Community Blind Spot to Surprise or Deceptive Data. Its author is not disclosed, as is standard policy, and it is undated. However, we know it was obviously composed prior to the info release as described by Klass because he discussed it in the 1997 newsletter, and it is referenced in another NSA doc from the same era. More on that shortly, but let's consider the draft a bit.

"The implications of the UFO phenomena go far beyond the particular phenomena itself," the 7-page doc begins. It goes on to explain that "surprise attack is such a basic ingredient of military success" because "it is able to rely on a most dependable human blind spot: The inability of most men to objectively process and evaluate highly unusual data and to react to the data in a meaningful way."

The author then cites celebrated ufologist Dr. Jacques Vallee while establishing the human response to observations of unusual phenomena "is predictable and graphically depictable." The assault of a person's psychological structure is considered, with the emotional impact of the strangeness of a UFO sighting compared to witnessing a brutal murder, and identified as "the same."

Conditions attributed to trauma are reviewed, including amnesia, and a chart with a "strangeness index" (see right) estimates the likelihood a person will discuss experiences with others in proportion to the perceived extent of peculiarity. It suggests the stranger the incident, the less people the witness will tell, which could also easily be interpreted as the more traumatized and mentally paralyzed they stand to become.

The first of two redacted sections is apparently an example of how human response to perceived unusual phenomena can be detrimental, particularly from a military perspective, as the author concludes, "It is apparent that we cannot allow such a human flaw to leave us blinded to unusual or surprising material. The example indicates that some people are less affected by strange phenomena than others, though still frightened by it, they remain capable of reporting it with a fair degree of objectivity."

It might be interesting to know more about the details of that redacted example. The second redacted section is the author's recommendations to solve the challenge.

Seeking more information about the two redacted sections brings us to another document you've probably heard about or seen around. It's an affidavit of NSA man Eugene F. Yeates in the case of Citizens Against Unidentified Flying Objects Secrecy v. National Security Agency - and there are two affidavits, one public, the other originally classified but later released. Nothing's ever simple in UFO Land.

Fork in the Road

Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, once said about UFOs, "Well, it turns out that the government does have something to hide, but it has nothing to do with extraterrestrials." He may very well be right, and he's certainly correct in at least most cases, yet many of us, Mr. Aftergood included, might find the circumstances quite interesting.

CAUS sued the NSA in the early 1980's to release its UFO files. This resulted in a chain of events which included the affidavit of Eugene F. Yeates. The long and short of his statements suggest the reasons the NSA desired to selectively withhold information had nothing to do with the UFO community's popular suspicions and collective definition of UFOs. The concerns, Yeates stated, were about national security involving matters of communications intelligence (COMINT) and signals intelligence (SIGINT).

Did you notice that fork in the road? Some people always chase aliens, and if there aren't any around, they're not interested. Others always debunk aliens, and if they're convinced they've established there aren't any around, they're not interested anymore either. If, however, you're interested in how the intelligence and UFO communities bump into each other in dark alleys, then thanks for sticking with me and we're well on our way.

There is a public Yeates affidavit and a formerly classified, now available affidavit. The NSA hosts a copy of the public doc, and The Black Vault provides a copy of the declassified doc.

The formerly classified affidavit contains statements from Yeates on the "Blind Spot" document explored above, including comments on the two sections remaining redacted. Yeates explained:

This document was discussed in paragraph 20b of my public affidavit. It is entitled UFO's and the Intelligence Community Blind Spot to Surprise or Deceptive Data. In this document, the author discusses what he considers to be a serious shortcoming in the Agency's COMINT interception and reporting procedures -- the inability to respond correctly to surprising information or deliberately deceptive data. He uses the UFO phenomena to illustrate his belief that the inability of the U.S. intelligence community to process this type of unusual data adversely affects U.S. intelligence gathering capabilities. Deletions in this document were made as follows:

[...]

(2) Paragraph three of this document uses a signals intelligence operation against [redacted] to illustrate the author's point. This paragraph contains information about SIGINT activities that is currently and properly classified... The material in this paragraph also concerns the organization and operational activities and functions of NSA directed against [redacted]...

(3) Paragraph four of the memorandum states the conclusions and recommendations of the author. While it talks of the ability of the Agency employees to deal with unusual phenomena it is not responsive to the plaintiff's request regarding UFO or UFO phenomena. In any event, as I stated in my public affidavit (paragraph 20b), the subject matter of that paragraph is exempt from disclosure because it contains the employee's specific recommendations for addressing the problem of responding to surprise material... One specific recommendation suggests an operational approach to solving the problem which reveals NSA activities and is, therefore, exempt from disclosure..

That sounds pretty interesting and potentially relevant to me. I'd like to know more.

The formerly classified Yeates affidavit went on to address a document withheld, once again on the grounds it had nothing to do with actual UFO phenomena, but was instead an "account by a person assigned to NSA of his attendance at a UFO symposium":

In processing the plaintiff's FOIA request, a total of two hundred and thirty-nine documents were located in NSA files. Seventy-nine of these documents originated with other government agencies and have been referred by NSA to those agencies for their direct response to the plaintiff. One document, which I addressed in paragraph 20c of my public affidavit, was erroneously treated as part of the subject matter of plaintiff's FOIA request. It is an account by a person assigned to NSA of his attendance at a UFO symposium and it cannot fairly be said to be a record of the kind sought by the plaintiff.

The same circumstances described by Yeates, yet this time as he stated in the public affidavit:

The third non-COMINT document is a memorandum for the record by an NSA assignee that was originally withheld in its entirety... In my review today I have ascertained, however, that this memorandum is neither in whole nor in part responsive to the plaintiff's request. It does not deal with UFOs or the UFO phenomena. Rather, it is a document voluntarily prepared by the assignee to report an incident that occurred during his attendance at a UFO symposium. It is the assignee's personal account of his activities and does not include reference to any UFO sighting or phenomena.

FOIA

It is apparently the statements about the UFO symposium that led Philip Klass to be most confident Yeates was referring to Tom Deuley, at least in that particular instance. As Klass explained in his 1997 newsletter, Deuley spoke publicly of discussing his attendance at a UFO conference with his employer, the NSA. Regardless, I identify a number of things of potential interest about the documents. I therefore filed a couple of FOIA requests.

In the first, I requested that the declassified draft, UFO's and the Intelligence Community Blind Spot to Surprise or Deceptive Data, once again be reviewed with consideration given to releasing the two currently redacted paragraphs. If possible, it might be interesting to know more about the operations, examples and recommendations contained therein and offered by the author.

The second FOIA request was to review the feasibility of now releasing the previously withheld report on the UFO symposium. It could be interesting to read, whether or not composed by Deuley, and it is of potential historic value. I've got a few more requests pending to other agencies on different cases and will be sure and pass along any relevant info as it develops.

Last but not least, I do not consider myself experienced at wading through declassified docs, identifying the latest declassified version (sometimes a doc will be declassified and "more" declassified repeatedly over time) and similar relevant tricks to know of the FOIA trade. If you're aware of docs and material relevant to the above cases or other topics I write about, a heads up is always welcome.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

What Does the NSA Know about The UFO-Cover-up Whistleblowership?

Unclassified NSA Document About Decrypting An Alien Transmission

Suing The NSA for Release of UFO Documents; Threats To National Security Claimed (1981)

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

The Roswell UFO Crash & Bessie Brazel Schreiber

The Debris Field as identified by Bill Brazel as it appeared in the early 1990s. (© Kevin Randle)

By Kevin Randle A Different Perspective 9-19-15

     The skeptics believe they have a slam dunk on the Roswell, coming at us with information that simply is not proven as we look at it. Much of it is single witness that we are accused of not mentioning and often contradicts that given by many others. One of the best examples of this is the testimony provided by Bessie Brazel, who seems to have been a very nice woman but who stood nearly alone in her testimony for many years.

In the early 1990s, the Fund for UFO Research, FUFOR, initiated a program to gather testimony and affidavits from Roswell witnesses. Naturally, one of those was Bessie Brazel Schreiber. In her affidavit, she said:

William W. “Mack” Brazel was my father. In 1947, when I was 14, he was the manager of the Foster Ranch in Lincoln County, New Mexico, near Corona. Our family had a home in Tularosa, when my mother, my younger brother Vernon, and I lived during the school year. The three of us spent the summers on the Foster place with dad.

In July 1947, right around the Fourth, dad found a lot of debris scattered over a pasture some distance from the house we lived in on the ranch. None of us was riding with him when he found the material, and I do not remember anyone else being with him. He told us about it when he came in at the end of the day.

Dad was concerned because the debris was near a surface-water stock tank. He thought having it blowing around would scare the sheep and they would not water. So, a day or two later, he, Vernon and I went to the site to pick up the material. We went on horseback and took several feed sacks to collect the debris. I do not recall just how far the site was from the house, but the ride out there took some time.

There as a lot of debris scattered sparsely over an area that seems to me now to have about the size of a football field [or about an acre]. There may have been additional material spread out more widely by the wind, which was blowing quite strongly.

The debris looked like pieces of a large balloon which had burst [When balloons burst do they shatter into dozens or hundreds of tiny bits?]. The pieces were small, the largest were small, the largest I remember measuring about the same as the diameter of a basketball. Most of it was a kind of double-sided material, foil-like on one side and rubber-like on the other. Both sides were grayish silver in color, the foil more silvery than the rubber. Sticks, like kite sticks, were three inches wide and had flower-like designs on it. The “flowers” were faint, a variety of pastel colors, and reminded me of Japanese paintings in which the flowers are not all connected. I do not recall any other types of material or markings, nor do I remember seeing gouges in the ground or any other signs that anything may have hit the ground hard.

The foil-rubber material could not be torn like ordinary aluminum foil can be torn [A small bit of information that the debunkers tend to overlook]. I do not recall anything else about the strength or other properties of what we picked up.

We spent several hours collecting the debris and putting it in sacks. I believe we filled about three sacks, and we took them back to the ranch house. We speculated a bit about what the material could be. I remember dad saying “Oh, it’s just a bunch of garbage.”

Soon after, dad went to Roswell to order winter feed [which is not what the newspaper articles claimed]. It was on this trip that he told the sheriff what he had found. I think we all went into town with him, but I am not certain about this [which is another fact often overlooked], as he made two or three trips to Roswell about that time, and we did not go on all of them. (In those days, it was an all-day trip, leaving very early in the morning and returning after dark. [Please note the travel time given by someone who made the trips.]) I am quite sure that it was no more than a day trip, and I do not remember dad taking any overnight or longer trips away from the ranch around that time.

Within a day or two, several military people came to the ranch. There may have been as many as 15 of them. One or two officers spoke with dad and mom, while the rest of us waited. No one spoke with Vernon and me. Since I seem to recall that the military were on the ranch most of a day, they may have gone out to where we picked up the material. I am not sure about this, one way or the other, but I do remember they took the sacks of debris with them.

Although it is certainly possible, I do not recall anyone finding any more of the material later. Dad’s comment on the whole business was, “They made one hell of a hullabaloo out of nothing.”

Since she gave that affidavit, she has been interviewed by others. The story told to them is substantially the same as that in the affidavit, though, when interviewed by John Kirby and Don Mitchell on March 8, 1995, she told them, “I wasn’t terribly excited or interested in it [the debris recovery] when it happened and I haven’t really gotten any more interested in it.”

She did say that her father had found the debris sometime before July 4 and that she, her father and her brother Vernon, collected it. She said, “We had three or four sacks... we stuffed the sacks and tied [them] to the saddle... Dad just stuck it [the sacks of debris] under the steps.”

It was the following week that her father took the debris into Roswell. She confirmed to Kirby and Newman that she, her mother and brother had gone with him. While he was in the sheriff’s office, they were in a nearby park. She said, “He was there quite a while because it was late afternoon or early evening when we started back to the ranch.”

According to her, when they returned, they were not followed by any civilian or military vehicles. That means that the testimony of Jesse Marcel was in error if we accept this. It also means that Sheridan Cavitt and his testimony is in error, if we accept this.

She said, “They didn’t go with us. They came up, I don’t know, if it was the next day or a couple of days later.”

She also said that they had cleaned the field and picked up all the debris. She said that they had it all. There was nothing for Marcel or Cavitt to see when they went to the field. In fact, in talking with ranchers in the area about this debris, whether from a Mogul balloon array or an alien spacecraft, I learned that they would not allow this sort of thing to remain out there. The animals had a habit of eating things like that as part of their grazing and if the animals ate it, it would make them sick. Brazel would clean it up as quickly as possible.

If we believe Bessie, then her father did not clean it up right away, but did within a couple of days. She said that it took several hours and that she and her brother Vernon had helped. Yet, we know that when Marcel arrived, there was a large field filled with debris. And, if we want to reject the testimony of Marcel, there is Cavitt. While his description of the debris field suggests it was smaller than that suggested by Marcel, he still said there was debris out there for them to find and for him to identify as the remains of a balloon.

So, Bessie’s story is contradicted by Marcel and Cavitt, one who later thought it was a spacecraft and one who said it was a balloon after saying he had never been involved in a balloon recovery. It doesn’t matter which side of the fence you come down on, there is testimony to contradict what Bessie remembers about the cleaning of the debris field. She is stand alone on this.

Bessie also said that her father didn’t return to Roswell a day or so after his initial trip and there is nothing in her affidavit to suggest otherwise. She added, telling Kirby and Newman that if he had gone to Roswell and didn’t return for three or four days, there would have been hell to pay. There was no reason for him to return to Roswell after they all had gone there earlier in the week especially if the Army had arrived to take charge of the debris stored under the steps.

But once again, there is evidence that such is not the case. First, and probably best, is the article that appeared in the Roswell Daily Record on July 9. Mack Brazel was photographed while there. He gave an interview to two AP reporters at the newspaper office in Roswell. Clearly, he returned to Roswell at some point. Bessie’s memory of the events is wrong about his not returning as documented in the newspapers.

Major Edwin Easley was the provost marshal in Roswell in 1947. He told me that Mack Brazel had been held in the guest house for several days. Brazel said he was in jail and I suppose that if you’re not allowed to leave without escort and that the doors are locked, then being in the guest house is about the same thing. This information was corroborated by a number of Brazel’s neighbors.

Brazel on the front page of the newspaper

Bill Brazel, Bessie’s older brother told me that he saw an article about his father in one of the Albuquerque newspapers [Kal Korff incorrectly claims that there were no pictures of Mack or articles about him on the front pages of any of the newspapers at the time] and realized that his father needed help. When Bill arrived at the ranch, his father was not there and didn’t return for three or four days. In fact, according to Bill, there was no one at the ranch at that time.

Neighbors like Marian Strickland told me that Mack had complained to her about being held in jail. Although she didn’t see Mack until after the events, she did say that he sat in her kitchen complaining about being held in Roswell. While there is some second-hand aspect in this, Strickland was telling me that Mack complained to her and her husband that he had been held in Roswell.

Walt Whitmore, Jr., son of the KGFL radio’s majority owner, told me that he had run into Brazel early in the morning after Brazel spent the night at his father’s house. This was before Brazel was taken out to the base. Whitmore claims that Brazel told him about the debris and Whitmore said that he then drove out there to see the field. He claimed to have picked up some of the debris, which he said was part of a balloon. He kept it for years, he said, but when the time came to produce it, he could not. This information was in conflict with what he told to Bill Moore and published in The Roswell Incident. I will note here that I do not find this testimony to be reliable but mention it because it puts Brazel overnight in Roswell.

Here’s another important point. Bessie said that she recognized the material as a balloon. So, we have a 14-year-old girl who knows a balloon when she sees one, but the air intelligence officer, not to mention several others, are incapable of this. If the material was so readily identifiable to some, especially civilians, why were so many in the military fooled? And why the high powered effort to recover it and get samples of it to Fort Worth if it was only a balloon?

But she told Bill Moore when he asked her if it was some sort of a weather balloon, she said:

No, it was definitely not a balloon. We had seen weather balloons quite a lot – both on the ground and in the air. We had even found a couple of the Japanese-style balloons that come down in the area once. [This might be a reference to the Japanese balloon bombs of World War II but there is no evidence that one ever landed in New Mexico, which is strange since they had landed in the states all around New Mexico.] We also picked up a couple of those thin rubber balloons with instrument packages. This was nothing like that. I have never seen anything resembling this sort of thing before – or since… We never found any pieces of it –afterwards – after the military was there…

Karl Pflock suggested that Bill Brazel had corroborated that the family was at the ranch at the time, implying that they participated in the cleanup. He wrote:

In a 1979 interview, Bessie Schreiber’s older brother Bill recalled other members of his family being on the ranch with his father at the time the debris fell there. “Dad,” he said, “was in the ranch house with two of the younger kids [presumably Bessie and Vernon [insertion made by Pflock]] late on evening when a terrible lightning stormy came up… [T]he next morning while riding out over the pasture to check on some sheep, he came across this collection of wreckage.” Bill mentioned specifically that, on the way to Roswell with some of the debris, his father dropped off the children with their mother in Tularosa.

This means, simply, that while Bessie and Vernon might have been on the ranch for the thunderstorm, they did not accompany him into Roswell, weren’t there when the military came back with Mack and wasn’t there for the cleanup that took place later. Bill Brazel certainly does nothing to corroborate that Bessie or Vernon were there for the events in the following days.

There are a number of witnesses and newspaper articles that shows that Mack was in Roswell overnight. It means that Bessie’s memories of July 1947 agree with nothing else. It means that when all the evidence is aligned against a specific claim, we must reject the claim even if some of the evidence is from the decades old memories.

This takes another turn sometime later, and I’m sure the allegation will be hurled that the UFO researchers pressed her into recanting her story at that time. She told Don Schmitt and Tom Carey, “It was another occurrence altogether. I had helped my dad gather up weather balloons on a number of occasions. I have come to the conclusion that what my dad found back at that time was something else altogether.” They added, “It is accepted that she and her brother Vernon were at the ranch at the time of the incident, but the ranch house was almost 10 miles from the debris field …” Her brother, Bill, referring to the debris field said, “She wasn’t even there.”

While we are aware of the testimony, and while I’m sure that she was sincere in what she said, it is clear that she was mistaken. When we compare the written record with her testimony, we can see the errors. If the conflict in the testimony was just between Bessie and her brother, Bill, we would have a “he said/she said” argument, but others who were there corroborate what her brother said. Then, we have her recanting the testimony, which by itself, should eliminate it from the record. But the real point here is that we did investigate her claims, did make sure she was interviewed, and have provided information about it. She wasn’t ignored, just found to be in conflict with too much other information that was corroborated.

Continue Reading ►

See Also:

Roswell’s Aliens: Where Are They Now?

Roswell UFO Witness, 'Mack' Brazel's Uncle Slays Pat Garrett, The Man Who Killed Billy The Kid

The Roswell [Flying Saucer] Press Release and Colonel Blanchard (Pt II)

Who Told Walter Haut about the Rowell Debris Field?

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Veteran Roswell UFO Researcher Condemns Recent Witness Revelations As Shoddy and Disingenuous

Tweet

Anthony Bragalia takes credit for other researchers work

Editors Note: As many of our regular readers are aware, both Dennis Balthaser and Tony Bragalia have columns here at TUFOC and we have been publishing their respective penscript for years. The following article is a revision of the original (12-13-12) after Mr. Balthaser & Mr. Bragalia discussed the matter.

In the original article Mr. Balthaser made a public request/suggestion for Mr. Bragalia to remove a snippet of audio (re an interview with witness Walter Haut, co-copyrighted by Balthaser & Wendy Connors) or links thereof, from his (TB’s) recent article—Mr. Bragalia complied posthaste—FW

By Dennis Balthaser www.truthseekeratroswell.com 12-13-12

     Anthony Bragalia’s latest article entitled “Roswell Officer Speaks from the Grave: Taped Confession of ET Recovery Revealed”, posted on his bragalia.blogspot.com on December 6, 2012 is another of his articles containing wrong, and misleading information where in my opinion he also wrongly took credit for being the first to reveal certain information. I previously called Bragalia’s hand in January 2010 about an article he wrote about the BLM and the Foster ranch where the Roswell debris was found.

The taped confession he refers to is an “oral history video recording” that former Historical Researcher Wendy Connors and I did with Walter Haut at the UFO Museum November 15, 2000. (My copy of the videotape has the following notation on the cover: “Copyright © MM-Wendy Connors/Dennis Balthaser”.) In Bragalia’s article he lists the date of the recording as 1999, which indicates he did not know it was a video recording or the date it was done. He also states that, “Wendy Connors has graciously and generously entrusted him with access to her years of research materials, now in the care of an archivist in the Pacific Northwest.”

I contacted Wendy about that statement, and she emphatically informed me that, “she gave him permission to get copies of printed materials from her archives, but DID NOT give him permission to use the Haut interview we did.” The Walter Haut interview we did is not in the public domain. Apparently this is where the confusion came into play, as Tony has an email from Wendy stating he has “Carte Blanche” to her archived material.

That brings me to the copyright law. The Haut interview as stated above, is copyrighted jointly by Wendy and I. I was never contacted by Bragalia about using any portion of the interview, before he wrote it, and consequently suggested that he remove it in its entirety from his blog or any other website that might have posted it.

“AFTER” Bragalia heard about this editorial I was writing he did finally call me, and I am of the opinion that he was not aware that I was part of the interview or had the joint copyright with Wendy. His reason for not calling earlier was due to other articles I had written that were critical of his research (like now), highlighting errors and erroneous statements etc. The 27-second audio recording he originally had in the article was removed quickly after hearing about my concern, which was the prudent thing to do, claiming that had he known about the copyright he would have called me. I will accept that and advised him to be more diligent in the future when doing his research.

Bragalia had no knowledge of how or when Wendy and I discovered some of the information we discussed with Walter during the interview. I can tell you that some of the information came from Walter’s daughter prior to the interview and that 6 pages of questions and comments were used to conduct the interview by me, with his daughter agreeing to the questions to be presented. (I have a copy of the written agenda used with a note that she had seen the agenda.) There were no restrictions placed on Wendy or I about what would be discussed in the interview, which covered Walter’s personal and military life as a video oral history, and were explained to him to his satisfaction during the first part of the recording

In the first paragraph of Bragalia’s article he refers to Walter Haut as a Lieutenant Colonel and Press Officer. Walter was a Lieutenant---not a Lieutenant Colonel. Considering the difference in rank between a Lieutenant Colonel and Lieutenant is more than an oversight as Bragalia admitted it was on his part.

In the same paragraph he states that a portion of the rare audiotape is revealed publicly by him for the first time in his article. Wendy Connors and I being interviewed on the radio show “Strange Days Indeed”, years ago played a small portion of the tape as copyright owners, so Bragalia should not have taken credit for revealing something for the first time. Our interview with Walter was not the first time that he revealed some of the information, but was one of the reasons Wendy and I decided to do the oral history with him.

The notarized declaration of 2002 that Bragalia mentions as being published in Schmitt and Carey’s book, was not written by Walter, but by Don Schmitt by his own admission on the “Paracast” radio show. Walter signed it in the presence of a visitor to the UFO Museum, whose last name is not listed as the witness on the affidavit in their book. Neither Schmitt, nor Carey were present when Walter signed it. There was another affidavit signed by Walter Haut in 1993 witnessed by Max Littell, who along with Glenn Dennis and Walter Haut were the original founders of the UFO Museum. The verbiage, content and style of writing in the 2002 affidavit was totally different than the 1993 affidavit and did not sound like the man Wendy and I interviewed in 2000.

Bragalia makes no reference to some of the photos used in his article as having requested permission to use them, such as the movie film prop belonging to the Museum, or the Roswell Daily record newspaper that he shows in the article. Perhaps in Bragalia’s mind he is the first to reveal those photos also. A good researcher would make sure he has permission to use certain information before going public with it.

Having volunteered at the Museum from 1996-1998, I had the opportunity to visit with Walter daily and had the utmost respect for him. I in fact wrote a tribute to him on January 2, 2006 after his death in 2005. I also wrote an editorial on October 1, 2007 about the 2002 affidavit Walter signed written by Don Schmitt. Both articles are archived on my website in the Editorials link.

If Bragalia is going to write future articles about Roswell, he needs to thoroughly research his information before going public, and honor copyright laws, when they apply as they did in this latest article about Walter Haut. I do not take lightly those who use other researchers' years of work for their own credit, and can assure you I will publicly do whatever is needed to keep the field of Ufology honest. Copyright laws are there for a reason, to prevent people from taking credit for other researchers work.

In our phone conversation Tony admitted that he “assumed” that I was just sitting in on the interview rather than being an actual participant in the interview, and never bothered to contact me, or question my involvement with the interview, knowing I was present. I would like to believe that Anthony Bragalia is a better researcher than what he presented in the article, and would hope that any future articles he writes are better researched than this one was.

I was pleased that he finally did contact me, and I accept the fact that he admitted he should have also contacted me about the copyright, and did have the short audio clip removed as I requested, however I stand firm on my thoughts about the wrong and misleading information he presented in the article.

Continue Reading . . .


See Also:

A Tribute to Walter Haut

Walter Haut, Roswell and a Whole Lotta Questions

New Revelations On Haut Affidavit

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

Roswell Officer Speaks from the Grave: Taped Confession of ET Recovery Revealed

Tweet

Editor's Note–Please see my commentary (rebuttal) at the end of the article–FW

By Anthony Bragalia
The UFO Chronicles
12-6-12

      A Lieutenant Colonel and Press Officer at Roswell Army Air Field (RAAF) in 1947 left a testament to the reality of fallen ET in a rare audio recording that was meant to be heard after his death. A portion of it is revealed here publicly for the first time.

It is in this taped message that Walter Haut (a decorated bombardier and Purple Heart recipient) first openly acknowledged his personal witness to an alien-piloted craft found on the desert floor in New Mexico. And people who knew Walter well have now come forward about what he had said about the matter very early on- and why he did not release all of this information until the winter of his life.

Walter would of course go on to sign a notarized declaration in December, 2002 of his full knowledge of the Roswell incident as a piloted, extraterrestrial event. This was famously reported in mainstream media based on the publication of the bestseller Witness to Roswell and the work of the book’s authors Tom Carey and Don Schmitt.

But it was four years before this in 1999 that Walter Haut had admitted for the first time to someone outside of a small circle what he knew about the entirety of the Roswell event. And he allowed it to be recorded.

Like the notarized affidavit, Walter did not wish this 1999 recorded confession released until some point after his death, which occurred in 2005 at age 83. This enabled him to honor his oath during his life to the ultimate secret: the recovery and retrieval of beings not from earth.

A Walter Redux

As Press Officer at RAAF in July of 1947, Walter Haut composed the famous Press Release that was dictated to him by Colonel William Blanchard, Base Commander and close personal friend. Walter was made to state that the “flying disc” reported crashed near Roswell earlier was now known to be merely an errant weather balloon, initially confused as something more. The release was carried in the Roswell papers and the world over.

In 2002 Walter elected to come clean for history about what really had happened. None of the press reports he was made to distribute were true. Walt said that there was in fact a small craft that was piloted that had crashed. He saw it and the debris and one of the extraterrestrial beings. This announcement made headlines and brought Roswell back in the news like never before in the preceding 60 years that the crash had occurred.

A Snippet of the Actual Haut Recorded Confession

In 1999 pioneering New Mexico researcher Wendy Connors interviewed Walter in-person for the record about Roswell. She was tenacious in her questioning. She was accompanied by one of her associates at the time, Dennis Balthaser.

Wendy is now in poor health but has graciously and generously entrusted me with access to her years of research materials, now in the care of an archivist located in the Pacific Northwest.

In the interview, tape running, Wendy Connors asks Walter about his knowledge of any beings that may have been associated with the craft that fell at Roswell. Walter hesitatingly replies to her:

“To the best of my remembrance there was one body.”

“It was a relatively small body, comparable to, oh, maybe to an 11 year old or a 10 year old child.”

“It was pretty well beat up.”

He then seems to pause as if he had said too much and pulls back:

“I cannot give you (illegible) to be honest anything other than that.”

In other parts of the tape (hopefully to be released in its entirety at a later date) Haut does say just a bit more.

He speaks of the childlike body having been partially covered by a tarp.

He also speaks of having personally witnessed the craft wreckage from the crash stored in a hangar at the base after the crash and offers details on this.

He makes mention that the bodies may have been taken to Lovelace Clinic afterwards.

LINK TO AUDIO HAS BEEN REMOVED PER REQUEST OF DENNIS BALTHASER COPYRIGHT HOLDER

What Walter Privately Hinted to Others

Very little known is that Walter did give hints to the ultimate secret that he had held- to a very select few.

Robert Shirkey was the Base Operations Officer at RAAF in 1947. Before he passed, Shirkey told his son that back in 1989 Walter had personally confessed to him that he had he has personal knowledge that the object that crashed in the desert could only have been from another world, and that he had seen it.

Lloyd E. Nelson was a PFC who clerked for Haut in the RAAF Public Information Office in 1947. He remembers Walt coming into their office at the time and showing to him small pieces of wreckage debris including an I-Beam that was small and had writing on it. He was also shown a ceramic type piece of material that appeared broken off. Both Officer Jesse Marcel who was confirmed at the site and Walter told Nelson to say nothing.

This confirms details of Haut’s much later signed confession in 2002. In the early 2000s, Nelson called Walter to find out more about the material. Nelson said, “To my dismay, Walter would not confirm to me anything. He knew that I was there but he would not admit it, not even to me.”

Base Finance Officer Richard C. Harris told Roswell researcher and author Kevin Randle in the mid-1990s that Haut did know about the bodies from the crash having been stored in the base hangar. He knew this because Haut asked Harris at the time of the event if he would like to see them. Harris, apparently not wishing such a sight, did not.

Fred Wilcox (a civilian employee at Roswell Army Air Field in 1948) was an acquaintance of Haut. In 2000, Wilcox said that in 1955 a mutual female friend of theirs’ told him that Walt had confided in her privately that he was actually at the crash scene and that there were alien bodies.

Why Walter Didn’t Talk Until the End

Walt’s wife “Pete” Haut said that for years after the crash incident that Haut received visits from an Air Force Intelligence officer that he knew from his days in the service. Pete states, “Anytime that there was a ‘flap’ about UFOs in the news anywhere in the country, he would show up. He would always manage to talk about hos the Air Force had explained away this sighting or that.”

Towards the end of his life, Haut himself said that he would receive regular phone threats for many years after the incident. He said to one researcher, “There were so many calls I lost track of them- about 20 years of it.” One of these calls was from the retired Colonel son of a late General who told Haut, “Lieutenants should know how to keep their mouths shut.”

Among Walter’s personal affects were found Christmas cards from the former head of the CIC intelligence at Ft. Worth, TX, Milton Knight. One of the cards read, “I still say that there were no bodies at Ft. Worth.”

Walter’s Truth Finally Revealed

We hear in his own words here (with more to follow) that Walter admits his personal witness to the ET reality of Roswell. And we see here that others from his far past were privilidged to know his secret. This shows that Walter Haut was not in any way “coached” about his 2002 affidavit, as some critics suggest. It shows that he was of sound mind and that he offered the final secret of the found bodies willingly, if not reluctantly.

Bragalia Drops The Ball On This One
Please note this is a hasty, brief response to the above article

Oh my! Where to begin?!

Actually, since this has all been hashed and rehashed years ago, I'll begin by repeating what I said then:

Re Walter: I have the highest regard for him, and believe him to have been a person of good character, and I applaud his service during the war and all of his life's achievements thereafter, including of course being one of the co-founders of "The Roswell Museum."

That said, probably the most significant matter of fact in reference to what Tony has "labeled" a taped confession (aside from that being an erroneous description) is that the interview that Dennis & Wendy conducted with Walter was "VIDEO taped" (in November 15, 2000) and performed under the auspice of “Oral History” about “Walter’s life” (not just Roswell).

I was one of the researchers to get a full, unedited copy of the interview after Walter's passing and it was not at all what I anticipated, nor is it anything akin to what Tony describes herein–quite the opposite in fact.

To state the obvious, the merits of a "video" interview far surpass that of just audio alone, and for anyone to properly interpret it, or offer an informed opinion they need to watch it in its entirety; for research purposes—absorbing it several times while taking notes is prudent (as I did ).

To be clear and to put things in their proper context, Walter Haut for over 50 years (although endorsing the ETH for the Roswell Incident and repeatedly describing his part in the events, i.e., being the base PIO and writing the now famous press release and disseminating it to the civilian news organizations in Roswell) denied ever seeing bodies, wreckage etc., or being more involved then he was in his capacity as base PIO. In 1993 “he” wrote and signed an affidavit affirming said facts.

In the “2000 video interview” rather then being a confession or smoking gun as suggested here, for me in the most positive light it confused the issues and in the worst case scenario it affirmed what Walter had said all along as “HE SAID 4 TIMES THAT HE DIDN”T SEE ANYTHING in the very same session!”

Moreover, during the interview in response to direct questions, he couldn’t remember where he did his basic training; he couldn’t remember where he was stationed after the war; he couldn’t remember certain words; he often repeated himself, as well as contradicted himself—one time within a few sentences and didn’t seem to be cognizant of it. I later had my wife watch the interview with me (without any advanced input from me); at the end, we both felt that we might be watching the early onset of either Alzheimer's and or some form of dementia.

In 2003 Walter appeared on the Larry King Show; again, he appeared very confused and in this instance could not finish the segment. Prior to unexpectedly exiting the interview, King asked:

"Did you, Walter, ever see any of the wreckage?"

Walter replied, "No."

In 2007 Schmitt & Carey’s book was released with what was exalted (like now) as smoking evidence and or a death bed confession in the form of another affidavit; in reading it . . . this clear, concise, meticulously written document, inclusive of precise dates and times etc., it gave me great pause (to be polite), as the man that I saw in the video, (two years prior) didn’t seem capable of crafting such an elucidation. Quite frankly, I was dumbfounded!

I was certainly curious to know just how the affidavit was prepared; my prurience was satisfied with Don Schmitt’s admission that “Walter did not write the affidavit–he (Schmitt) did.”

I don’t mean to be rude; however, none of what is presented in the article is new; this was beat to death 5 years ago, and quite frankly as evidence is worthless:

• By text book definition, Walter had dementia of some sort, whether from old-age or otherwise.

• We have two (or more) conflicting affidavits, one Walter wrote himself and one Schmitt wrote.

• We have a “video-taped interviewed” where Walter seemed confused, very forgetful and contradictory; again he repeatedly said (4 times he didn’t see anything).

At the end of the day, for one to assess the Haut debacle properly, studying the video in its entirety (along with everything else) is essential; however, barring that pay heed to the a fore mentioned facts weigh it accordingly.–FW

See Also:

New Revelations On Haut Affidavit

Walter Haut, Roswell and a Whole Lotta Questions

A Tribute to Walter Haut

REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE

New Revelations On Haut Affidavit

By Frank Warren
The UFO Chronicles
7-23-07

Schmitt Reveals Details of Haut Affidavit

     With the recent publication of, Witness to Roswell, co-authored by researchers, Donald Schmitt and Tom Carey much attention is being given to the previously unknown sealed affidavit that was -signed- by former Lt. Walter Haut, base public information officer (PIO) of the then Roswell Army Air Field. (RAAF 1947) A copy of the affidavit is printed in toto within the pages of the book.

Walter of course was tasked to write the press release which announced to the world that the “RAAF Captures Flying Saucer On A Ranch Near Roswell.”

The affidavit which apparently was to be held until Walter’s death, curiously was not released at that time, but rather held until Schmitt & Carey’s book was complete, and it’s release coincided with the 60th anniversary of the Roswell Incident. (This past July).

One needn’t be a rocket scientist to understand the timing in regards to releasing a book (another) about the Roswell crash at the 60th anniversary given all the media attention etc., however, I personally find it curious why the affidavit was held back.

It certainly gives the book more punch; however, the significance of the statements contained therein is unquestionably more valuable then increased book sales!

For those not paying attention, the affidavit is a reversal of Walter’s lifelong public statements in regards to the depth of his involvement with the Roswell flying saucer crash and its occupants.

Although Walter has always maintained an other worldly explanation for the debris, and has been supportive of the anecdotal evidence in regards to bodies etc., he has always denied (publicly), having seen any wreckage, bodies and or having gone to the crash site!

With the release of the book, and more specifically the affidavit within, a mild dissonance is undulating amongst Ufologists. To be clear, the layperson might argue the crux of Walter’s declaration, i.e., “an alien craft and it’s occupants,” and then post cover-up; however, the issue amongst researchers is not the core content but what is on it’s fringes.

In 2000 esteemed Ufologists Wendy Connors and Dennis Balthaser interviewed Walter, and recorded it on video tape; it was done on the same precept as the recently released affidavit; that is, it was to be released posthumously in order for Walter to talk openly and freely. (Which was honored).

Having watched the video interview a number of times (with pen in hand) the possibility arose, in my view, that Walter may have been exhibiting signs of some form of dementia; in that he couldn’t remember where he did his basic training; he couldn’t remember where he was stationed after the war; he couldn’t remember certain words; he often repeated himself, as well as contradicted himself, one time within a few sentences, and didn’t seem to be cognizant of it.

The severity of his “memory problems” has been contentious; however, for those who have watched the interview–most (if not all) agree it was evident to some extent.

That said, when I read the affidavit—this clear, concise, meticulously written document, inclusive of precise dates and times etc., it gave me great pause (to be polite), as the man that I saw in the video, (two years prior) didn’t seem capable of crafting such an elucidation.

I was certainly curious to know just how the affidavit was prepared; my prurience was satisfied yesterday with Don Schmitt’s admission that Walter did not write the affidavit!

In a recent interview with co-hosts, Gene Steinberg and David Biedny of the Paracast Show (an internet podcast production on the paranormal) the Roswell researcher, and co-author of “Witness To Roswell” came clean on the Walter Haut affidavit.

Schmitt related that through his research he became aware of just how close Haut and base commander Colonel William Butch Blanchard became, and pondered the notion of Haut being left out in the cold in regards to the information vis-à-vis the Roswell Incident.

On that premise Schmitt would often question Haut regarding any knowledge he may have.

Haut Didn't Pen Affidavit Himself

Schmitt states:

It was 3 years before Walter died. And he actually trickled information to us, on and off through the years, but he was quite clear that he was very sensitive to not only his security oath, but as though he was honoring someone else’s request to him, and it was quite clear as we demonstrated in the book, that he was honoring the 'old man,' as he called him, Colonel Blanchard . . . that Blanchard asked him not to say another word about this, and he was doing just that.

So we had to come up with a venue, a manner by which he could present the information, tell us what had happened to the best of his ability, without betraying that trust, that bond that he had with Blanchard. And it was suggested to us by an attorney that a ‘sealed statement’ (emphasis added) might provide that opportunity, and that’s what we’ve done, and ‘it was prepared, it was based on things that Walter told us in confidence for a number of years’ (emphasis added) leading up to that time he was ready to do it, his doctor, had given us a clear go ahead, that he mentally was totally competent . . ..

Schmitt goes on to reiterate that Walter read the document a number of times and then signed it with three other witnesses present.

Some have suggested that Walter’s “memory problems” were nothing but a ruse, in keeping the party line, i.e., not publicly breaking his security oath, or any promise to Colonel Blanchard; I would suggest to those folks, to view the video interview of 2000; however, if there weren’t any mental difficulties, and given the guidelines of the affidavit, that is a posthumous release, then the question would be, “why didn’t Walter pen the document himself?” Opposed to it being “prepared, based on things that Walter told Schmitt (presumably) in confidence for a number of years?”

Walter not penning the affidavit himself comes to no surprise to me; however it is important to point out that assuming he was in sound mind, and apparently according to Schmitt, it was deemed necessary to have a doctor “confirm that” (a wise move in these matters of grave circumstance in my view), the affidavit, from a legal standpoint, carries the same weight as if it were penned by his own hand.

Thomas J. Carey and Donald R. Schmitt Interview on Paracast

See Also:

Roswell Officer's Amazing Deathbed Admission Raises Possibility That Aliens DID Visit

1:01 pm: Lt. Walter Haut, Spokesman Who Announced Wreckage of Flying Saucer in Roswell, Died at 83!

SHARE YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE