UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 18

Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit - Ledger

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 13:15:18 -0300
Archived: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 10:07:50 -0400
Subject: Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit - Ledger

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2007 16:12:30 +0100
>Subject: Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit

>>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 11:33:43 -0700
>>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


>>Haut's second affidavit said that Ramey wanted to draw attention
>>away from the second craft/body site by acknowledging only the
>>first site, or debris field. He then said, "I was not completely
>>informed how this would be accomplished."

>>I interpret that to mean he _didn't_ know about the weather
>>balloon deception at that time, which instead could have been
>>hatched by Ramey shortly after the meeting.

>You're right. When Haut said "...at the meeting... Gen. Ramey
>proposed a plan, which I believe originated from his bosses at
>the Pentagon", I took this to mean that the essence of the
>weather balloon plan was explained at the meeting, if not the
>exact when and where. But, yes, it could be that only the need
>for some sort of substitution was discussed, without a
>conclusion being reached as to what would be substituted. That's
>one of my problems out of the way.

>But if Haut was himself covering up clues to his own (and perhaps
>Blanchard's) real role in 1993, and, instead of simply saying
>nothing, went to the trouble of inventing circumstantial
>smokescreen details in a sworn affidavit:

>"I believe Col. Blanchard saw the material, because he sounded
>positive about what the material was", "He felt that he wanted
>the local media to have the first opportunity at the story"

>Does this fit with his then "dropping many hints" and telling
>several people explicitly about the secret meeting and the
>bodies over the years, including UFO investigators? I'm not
>sure. I still find it difficult to make that 1993 affidavit ring
>false in a way that rings true, if you understand what I mean!

Martin, David,

This is a little off topic but relating to the weather balloon.
Who do you suppose picked - or decided to go with - the weather
balloon as an explanation-Blanchard?

Why didn't the USAAF just claim that a Top Secret, or even an
experimental aircraft had crashed and then sprinkle some
salvaged aluminum sheet, wiring and a couple of instruments
around that was in the maintenance hangars for the press to see.
They could then claim that that was all they could say about it
at this time because it is classified.

It almost seems to me that the weather balloon was offered up as
to be so unlikely to be misinterpreted by those who saw them on
a daily basis as acquiescing to higher command but without
entirely giving up on his moral obligation to more than just the
air force and a tip-off for those who had any idea of how
ludicrous the explanation was.

I've always been bothered with this simple-minded ruse. Mind you
it might work with the press, even now - unless they are on the
aviation beat - because they have no backgrounds in technology.

Don Ledger

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



[ 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