UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 25

Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two

From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:37:01 EST
Archived: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 12:23:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two


>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:23:53 +0100
>Subject: Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two

>>From: Greg Sandow <greg.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2007 16:49:28 -0500
>>Subject: Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two

>>>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 11:50:17 EST
>>>Subject: Randle On Haut's Affidavit Part Two

>>>On the other side of the coin, I do have one confirmation of
>>>Walter's new story that came from a man who lived in Albuquerque
>>>and who was the assistant finance officer for the 509th Bomb
>>>Group.

><snip>

>>I'd like to honor Kevin for how fair and thorough he is, not
>>just in this, but in everything he writes. He's a model of
>>objectivity, and could serve as a model for all of us in
>>ufology.

>>Thanks, Kevin.


>I want to join Greg in his comment. Thank you, Kevin, for your
>balanced and fair approach on that intricate question of the Haut
>affidavit.

Thanks to both you and Greg.

>Personally, I have met with Tom Carey and Donald Schmitt last
>July in Roswell, and again last September in Washington.

>I feel confident that the affidavit is a credible testimony of
>Walter Haut. And it is appoved by his daughter Julie Schuster,
>whom I also met briefly and who seemed quite credible to me as
>well.

If we look at what Walter said in the video taped interview
conducted by Connors/Balthaser, we see that all the statements
attributed to Walter present. He did say all those things. They
just weren't said in a coherent whole and there was Walter's
retreat into his original claims of only writing the press
release. If we are to criticize the new affidavit, it is only to
suggest that Walter's statements were made with a little more
force than is the real truth. It isn't quite as straightforward
as it seems in the affidavit and I'm just not sure that is much
of a criticism. I mean that the sometimes rambling nature of the
statements isn't clear from the tone of the affidavit. (I don't
think I have communicated this very clearly but hope you all get
the drift.)

>I also met with Dennis Balthaser, but his critique of the
>affidavit seemed to me to be more the result of a personal split
>with Julie Schuster ans the Museum, following her opposition to
>the release of the video recorded by him and Wendy Connors.

It does seem that there is something to be said about that.
Clearly there is trouble between Balthaser and Julie and I
certainly don't know what that trouble might be.

>I think she has the legal right to do that, doesn't she? It is a
>question of protection of the image of her father.

If I understand the law on this correctly (which is not a
foregone conclusion) the copyright of an audible or video tape
resides with the subject of the interview unless it is signed
away. If there is a signed release, then Connors and Balthaser
own the copyright. If there is not, then there is an area for
dispute. However, it seems that on the tape, Connors makes it
clear that Walter is the copyright holder and that copyright
would be inherited by Walter's heirs on his death. This however,
is a question for a legal authority who has all the facts.

On the other hand, Julie certainly has the right to protect the
image of her father. The Connors/Balthaser interview really does
little to tarnish that image though it does suggest an elderly
man who is sometimes confused by events in the distant past.

>To me, it is quite acceptable to prepare an affidavit, as long
>as the witness is still capable of understanding, and approves
>it without ambiguity, and that seems to be the case.

I do not understand why this has been raised as an issue. In
what I understand about the completion of the affidavit,
everything was done carefully, Walter, in the presence of his
daughter and his doctor read the document (maybe several times)
and found nothing wrong in it. In other words, it was prepared
by someone familiar with the case and signed by the witness
after a proper review.

>Other affidavits have been made that way. By the way, I recall
>that Karl Pflock had prepared an affidavit for Frankie Rowe, but
>she did not approve it and refused to sign it!

Frankie Rowe did sign an affidavit and I seem to remember that
Karl had prepared one that she didn't like. At this date, I
don't remember who prepared it for her, but I seem to remember
that I had a hand in that and in getting her to sign it... So
now I'm forced to dig deep into my memory about an event that on
one hand is extremely important and to recall a detail that is
not. I did prepare a number of affidavits for the FUFOR's
project, as did Fred Whiting and Karl Pflock. The important
detail was the witness signing the document and having it
properly notarized.


KRandle




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

See:

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


[ 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