UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 26

Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two

From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:14:52 -0800
Archived: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 08:11:12 -0500
Subject: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two


>From: Kevin Randle <KRandle993.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:37:01 EST
>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.)

Playing devil's advocate here: if the Schmitt affidavit is
deemed to be credible, then the contradictory declarations made
by Walter in the video interview (omitting the others for the
moment) done in 2000 are not! Specifically the _4_ times where
he said he didn't see anything!

Since some of the declarations made by Walter in 2000 are in
direct opposition of the declarations drafted by Schmitt and
signed by Walter, i.e., the affidavit in question, then we must
presume Walter lied earlier.

Kevin you wrote:

"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."

In the 2000 C & B interview Walter had difficulty remembering
things like where he was stationed after the war, and or where
he did his basic training; he had trouble remembering words etc.

In August 2001 David Rudiak interviewed Walter, recently he
(Rudiak) wrote, He claimed he couldn't remember clearly what had
happened over 50 years ago and anybody who said they could
wasn't being truthful.

During an appearance on Larry King in 2003, Walter, again,
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.)

The Schmitt affidavit was written in a very clear and concise
manner including times, dates, names etc. According to Schmitt,
it was prepared, it was based on things that Walter told us in
confidence for a number of years.

Now from going to the inability to recalling where one did his
basic training to remembering exact times on specif dates is a
tad greater then making statements with a little more force.

Additionally, Walter exhibited the same memory concerns with
Rudiak in 2001, and King in 2003; however, with Schmitt, as if
by
some miracle, this wasn't an issue.

>>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.

No one is more baffled by the malfeasance exhibited by Julie
upon Dennis, then Dennis himself! However, Gildas I can assure
you that Dennis' concerns about the Schmitt affidavit have
nothing to do with Walter's daughter, and or her actions. Dennis
was a 70 hour week volunteer at the Museum and spoke with Walter
on a daily basis; this is aside from the fact that he was there
and did the interview along with Wendy in 2000 and witnessed
Walter's answers as well as symptoms of memory loss.

Prior to becoming aware of the fact that Walter did not write
the affidavit, he was analytical of the same red flags I was
i.e., how could a man exhibiting symptoms of dementia (two years
prior), in the worst case scenario, or senior memory loss in the
best case scenario pen such a detailed document?

The answer is, he couldn't... and for that matter we now know
according to Schmitt, he didn't!

>>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.

Wendy also inserted conditions i.e., using the tape in her
research, sharing it with other researchers, and not releasing
it until after his death etc.

>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.

It was initially scrutinized because it was assumed that Walter
penned the affidavit himself, and since there was/is ample
evidence that he wasn't capable of doing that (in such great
detail), this certainly gave me pause. Moreover, much of this
controversy could have been nipped in the bud if this was
explained in advance.

Had I known that the affidavit was drafted by Schmitt based on
his interpretation of snippets of conversation he had with
Walter over a 3 year period I would have started out where I
have arrived at present.

For me personally, assuming that Walter was in sound mind, and
there are witnesses who declare he was, including an M.D. at the
time he signed Schmitt's chronicle then, as stated before, I
endorse the legality of the instrument.

<snip>

In my view a wiser decision to avoid controversy would have been
another video interview; aside from the obvious questions about
bodies and wreckage, Walter could have been given an opportunity
to discuss why he's speaking out now (then), and why he publicly
denied involvement for all these years.

Barring that, a video and or audio interview could have been done
reiterating the content of the Schmitt affidavit. The affidavit
could have been read to Walter line by line, and viewers, and or
listeners could have interpreted his responses themselves.

Unfortunately none of that happened; we are left with an
anecdote of an anecdote perpetrated by legal methodology and
endorsed by its namesake.

The value of the offering as we have seen isn't general, it's
much like a keepsake, the value is appurtenant to its beholder.


Respectfully,

Frank Warren



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