UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 17

Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit - Rudiak

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:50:52 -0700
Archived: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 09:12:02 -0400
Subject: Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit - Rudiak


>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 20:52:07 +0100
>Subject: Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit

>>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

>>>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.

>>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?

<snip>

>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,

Martin and List,

Both the 1993 and 2002 affidavit mention the 9:30 phone call.
This was the call from Blanchard to put out the press release.

1993:

"At approximately 9:30 AM on July 8, I received a call from Col.
William Blanchard, the base commander, who said he had in his
possession a flying saucer or parts thereof. He said it came
from a ranch northwest of Roswell, and that the base
Intelligence Officer, Major Jesse Marcel, was going to fly the
material to Fort Worth. Col. Blanchard told me to write a news
release about the operation and to deliver it to both newspapers
and the two radio stations in Roswell."

2002:

"At approximately 9:30 a.m. Col. Blanchard phoned my office and
dictated the press release of having in our possession a flying
disc, coming from a ranch northwest of Roswell, and Marcel
flying the material to higher headquarters. I was to deliver the
news release to radio stations KGFL and KSWS, and newspapers the
Daily Record and the Morning Dispatch."

These are virtually identical statements.

>or first hearing about
>the "weather balloon" story in a newspaper story the next day,

Haut in 2002 does NOT say that the LATER weather balloon cover
story was ever discussed in the morning meeting. Instead, he
says that, Ramey discussed how:

"Attention needed to be diverted from the more important site
north of town by acknowledging the other location. ***...I was
not completely informed how this would be accomplished."***

The press release was the diversion that acknowledged the debris
field site.

However, the weather balloon debunking by Ramey late in the
afternoon that started AFTER the press release became public was
something else entirely. This was not a diversion from the crash
sites but an attempt to kill the story altogether through
ridicule. And it appears to have been cooked up after the
morning meeting. Haut was not privy to this part of the coverup.

The balloon story did not appear in the Roswell papers (in fact,
almost every paper in the country) until the next day.

So I see no contradiction here either.

>or that he "believed" Blanchard actually saw the material
>because the man "sounded positive"

Yes, that would be shading the truth a bit according to the 2002
affavit, because there Haut says everybody at the morning
meeting, including Blanchard and himself, had both seen and
handled the debris. Thus Haut would have known for a fact that
Blanchard had seen the material. The exact statement in 1993 is:

"I believe Col. Blanchard saw the material, because he sounded
positive about what the material was. There is no chance that he
would have mistaken it for a weather balloon. Neither is their
any chance that Major Marcel would have been mistaken."

If there was "no chance" either Blanchard or Marcel could have
made a mistake, Haut must have either had absolute faith in the
infallibility of both men, or knew more than he was saying in
1993.

Also in 1993 Haut wrote:

"I am convinced that the material recovered was some type of
craft from outer space."

Again, this is either a man who totally believes in the
infallibility of Blanchard and Marcel, or who is dropping a very
strong hint that he knows considerably more than he is saying.

>about it in this phone call that was never made.

Of course Blanchard was going to contact Haut about putting out
the release one way or another. Why shouldn't he call him on the
phone? I don't know why you think there is some sort of
contradiction here.

>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.

First of all, I consider your objections to the 9:30 phone call
and Haut not knowing about the weather balloon story to be
spurious. Haut definitely did not contradict himself on these
points.

There is, in fact, a great deal that Haut didn't mention in his
1993 affadavit that shows up in 2002. So no contradictions here
either.

The main difference is a strong suggestion in 1993 that he had
no direct knowledge of the debris and only learned of it from
Blanchard. He could have worded it slightly differently without
contradicting himself later. E.g., suppose he had instead
written his 1993 affadavit like this:

"I'm sure Col. Blanchard had seen the material. There is no
chance that he would have mistaken it for a weather balloon."

That removes his mere "belief" that Blanchard had seen it. It
would be very cute with his wording but without direct
contradiction.

How much further could Haut go without giving the whole game
away? If he didn't want to reveal all before he died, he
couldn't say, "I know for an absolute fact that Col. Blanchard
had seen the material and couldn't mistake it for a weather
balloon because I was there at the morning meeting when all the
senior officers saw and handled it and nobody knew what it was.
In addition, everybody was briefed about the bodies and the
craft recovered at the second site. Since none of us were
drooling idiots, everybody, including Col. Blanchard, knew that
it wasn't a balloon crash of any kind that we were dealing
with."


David Rudiak


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