UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 16

Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit - Shough

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:52:07 +0100
Archived: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 09:55:09 -0400
Subject: Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit - Shough


>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:28:10 +0200
>Subject: Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit

>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:11:50 +0100
>>Subject: Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit

<snip>

>>Personally I find very unconvincing the idea that he made these
>>things up in 1993 with idea of somehow protecting the truth,
>>whereas I find that brief affidavit entirely convincing as a
>>naive statement of his belief at the time.

>Martin,

>I disagree with your conclusion about Walter Haut. It has been
>explained already by several researchers, and his daughter,
>prominently by Tom Carey and Donald Schmitt in their book
>Witness To Roswell, and again at the Roswell Festival last
>week, that Walter Haut did not want to reveal publicly all what
>he knew, before his death.

>He felt bound by his oath of secrecy, and wanted especially to
>remain faithful to his chief and personal friend, Colonel
>Blanchard. However, he also felt the need to leave a message, to
>be made public after his death, because the Roswell case was so
>important to him. Is that so hard to understand?

Gildas,

No, it is not hard to understand that someone might want to do
those things. It isn't hard to understand why someone might want
to omit parts of his story until his death. And any apparent
internal inconsistencies in Haut's new story may, as your post
argues, be explainable - I don't know enough about that to have
an opinion. But these are not really the issues I was asking
about.

As I already said, omitting parts of a story is one thing, but
so much of the original affidavit turns out (ex hypothesi) to
have been active invention of details like receiving a phone
call about the debris at 9:30 am on July 8 when no such phone
call (we now understand) was ever made, or first hearing about
the "weather balloon" story in a newspaper story the next day,
or that he "believed" Blanchard actually saw the material
because the man "sounded positive" about it in this phone call
that was never made.

These read to me like the sort of circumstantial details that
are either true or are added to give a spice of verisimiltude to
a tall tale. I don't feel that wishing to avoid mentioning a
secret meeting in a room full of alien crash debris would have
left him with no option but to make these things up. I think
that he could have omitted what he wished to omit without laying
these trip-wires and setting himself up for a posthumous
pratfall.

As I said my personal instinct is that the original affidavit
rings true, but it's no more than an instinct.


Martin Shough



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com