UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 27

Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two

From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:50:09 -0800
Archived: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 07:05:48 -0500
Subject: Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two


>From: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 13:14:52 -0800
>Subject: Re: 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

>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.

Of course, nobody can remember clearly everything that happened
50 years before. But that doesn't mean they are suffering from
dementia.

I also wrote that when I spoke to Walter in August 2001, I never
had any sense that he was suffering from dementia, such as
getting confused with words, having trouble putting sentences
together, fumbling for answers, etc. He was perfectly coherent.
Instead, my sense was that he used the old memory comment to
deflect questions that he didn't want to get into. He also
wouldn't allow me to tape the conversation, which may have been
his way of maintaining plausible deniability in case he blurted
something out that he shouldn't have.

Now this was almost a year after Wendy and Dennis interviewed
him. He wasn't a senile old man when I spoke to him, and
therefore I seriously doubt he was when interviewed earlier.

>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.

Everybody knows that Walter publicly denied any involvement or
knowledge of the incident beyond putting out the press release.
Yes, therefore his public statements prior to is death
contradicted the interview and affidavit statements released
after his death. Of course, this can be used to impeach is
testimony.

But I can think of good reasons why the man wouldn't go public
before his death, quite unlike CIC man Sheridan Cavitt, who
completely denied involvement or even being at the base until
the Air Force interviewed him in 1994, where he told a nothing
balloon story. Then, according to Kevin, when he approached
Cavitt again afterwards, Cavitt returned to denying any
involvment.

Cavitt was saying nothing of importance happened, therefore had
no reason to deny involvement either before or after his AF
interview, whereas Walter at the end was telling a fantastic,
literally earth-shaking story, the type of story that would get
you endless public exposure and harrassment while you were alive
if you went public. We all know how Roswell witnesses are
routinely trashed as liars, senile, bandwagon jumpers, etc. If
you want to completely avoid that sort of thing, you admit to
nothing remarkable, at best dropping a few hints here and there.

Guys like Walter may have had other reasons to deny deep
involvement. Carey & Schmitt say he had sworn to Blanchard not
to disclose what he knew during his lifetime. Others have
similarly said they swore an oath not to talk about, Edwin
Easley being but one example.

>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.

I've been interviewed on camera, and details slip my mind that I
know well, just because of feeling pressure to instantly
respond. This doesn't mean that I'm senile (I don't think) or
the information that I do provide is invalid.

Walter apparently told more than one person privately that he
had seen bodies and a craft and had been at the Tuesday morning
meeting with Ramey present when the event was discussed.
Further, the information in the affidavit agrees well with
testimony from other sources concerning times and dates.

E.g., his affidavit states that he saw the bodies and craft
after the press release became public. We already know exactly
when that happened: Tuesday, July 8, at around 2:30 p.m.
Roswell time. The base and the public information office got
inundated with outside phone calls. Haut's affidavit says calls
and messages were piling up and Blanchard suggested he go home
and "hide out" (Haut told me he let underlings in the PI office
handle the calls), but first Blanchard took him to the hangar.

Although the affidavit is not exact about the time of visiting
the hangar, we know from other information that it had to be
after 2:30, probably an hour or two. This squares very nicely
with times provided by others. E.g., various townspeople saw the
elliptical object covered with a tarp being driving through the
center of town on a flatbed truck on the afternoon of July 8.
One of them, Richard Talbert, then a newsboy, provided a time of
3:00 to 3:30, because that was when he would routinely pick up
the Roswell Daily Record for delivery. Over at the base, Sgt.
Earl Fulford said he was getting off work at 4:00 when he saw
the flatbed with tarped object being driven toward the hangar.
(Talbert also said he got a glimpse of the object when the tarp
momentarily lifted up. The dimensions and description are very
similar to that of the Haut affidavit.)

Thus the various testimony agrees well as to when the object was
delivered to the hangar where Haut could have seen it at the
time suggested by the affidavit.

The only other specific times and dates of the 2002 affidavit
were the morning meeting of July 8, already known, Haut being
dictated the press release by Blanchard around 9:30 a.m.
afterward, a time and event already provided by Walter in his
earlier 1993 affidavit, and Walter saying he first became aware
of the downed aircraft investigation by Marcel on the morning of
July 7 - no surprises there - and then a second site north of
Roswell late in the afternoon of July 7, discovered by other
civilians.

The second, closer, northerly site has corroboration from a
number of others, including Chester Barton (not even mentioned
in the Carey & Schmitt book), who said he was sent out there by
provost marshal Easley to check on the cleanup in the afternoon,
it was only a 45 minute drive from Roswell (vs. Haut affidavit's
40 miles from town), he was told it was discovered by
archeologists the previous evening, and he read about the flying
saucer in the newspaper (Daily Record) when he got back. So, in
other words, Barton was also telling us he was sent out on July
8 and the object had been found late in the afternoon on July 7
by civilians (archeologists). It's virtually the same story as
the Haut affidavit from a completely independent source.

For more on Barton, see:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Barton.html

>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.

Frank, you aren't understanding what I previously wrote. Walter
didn't tell me he had personal memory concerns, such as, "I'm
sorry, I just can't remember things the way I used to." Instead
he said nobody could perfectly remember things that happened
over 50 years ago, which is a general statement and something
else entirely.

<snip>

>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 man I met in 2001, a year prior to the affidavit and a year
after the interview, did NOT exhibit obvious outward signs of
senile dementia in the 2 hours I spent with him. He was
completely lucid and coherent. Nor did he tell me he thought his
memory was going.

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

If you compare the 1993 and 2002 affidavits  - for comparison,
see:

http://www.roswellproof.com/Haut.html

- the later affidavit is an extension of the earlier one
personally written by Haut. In that sense, half of the 2002
affidavit is already Haut's earlier statements and forms the
basic framework for the later affidavit. Into that framework are
extra sections written up by Schmitt, which he says are based on
earlier, private statements of Haut, detailing much greater
involvement: hearing of the second crash site on July 7, being
at the morning meeting on July 8 - with Ramey present and the
coverup discussed, being briefed on the two crash sites, and
handling debris - going to the hangar and seeing the bodies and
craft on the afternoon of July 8, plus a few lesser, poorly
detailed items.

Seeing at least one body and a craft plus being at the morning
meeting with Ramey are also in the 2000 interview. At one point,
under careful questioning by Wendy Connors to pin him down on
this, Walter was very definite about saying he had seen one body
and a craft and being at that meeting with Ramey present. It is
also very clear, from Connors' comments, that Walter had
discussed this previously with her and Connors also mentions how
she had heard him talking about seeing bodies with a French film
crew doing a documentary.

Walter does not seem at all confused during this questioning,
more like annoyed at being pinned down like this. What was he
supposed to say at this point? "I don't know where you got
these weird ideas Wendy, because I never told you or anybody
else that I had ever seen bodies or been at the morning meeting
with Ramey."

Apparently later in the interview, Haut started denying deep
involvement again. Is that mental confusion or a man trying to
backpeddle because he had second-thoughts about earlier
admitting to too much? The man I interviewed in 2001 did not
seem confused or fumbling at all.

<snip>

>>>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.

While I don't know the state of Haut's physical and mental
health when he read and signed the affidavit in 2002, he was not
a dottering old man when I spoke to him in August 2001. Instead
he was very careful with his words and what he chose to tell me.

I have to protest these repeated assertions that Haut was
incapable of providing the additional details of the 2002
affidavit. Maybe that's true, but it's not based on demonstrable
fact. Another good reason why the affidavit might have to be
drafted by somebody else was the fact that Haut was obviously a
reluctant witness when it came to _publicly_ admitting to any
deep involvement or witnessing anything extraordinary. These
were things he would say in private to people he knew and
trusted, but not anywhere else. Thus Wendy Connors had to push
him in the interview: "These are things you told me previously
Walter. Now I want you to go on the record while we're recording
this."

Similarly, Haut might not have drafted his own affidavit even if
he was mentally competent to do so. Having it drafted by
Schmitt, also based on previous conversations, is essentially
the same thing that Connors did with Haut when she interviewed
him: "Just confirm what you have previously told me privately."
It's a psychological ploy often used with reluctant witnesses.
Having it all written out for him just made it easier for him to
sign off on it. Drafting his own affidavit or recording his a
confession on his own initiative may never have happened because
he was psychologically reluctant to go public to the bitter end.

>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.

I think Frank Warren's main concern isn't the veracity of the
statements in the interview or the affidavit but how the force
of Haut's statements has been lessened by the manner in which
these were done and also by Haut contradicting himself.

I think the contradictions were the result of a man very
reluctant to come forward, and thus full of internal conflicts.

Ultimately the arbiter of what was revealed was Walter Haut
himself and Connors, Schmitt, et. al. did the best they knew how
under the circumstances.


David Rudiak


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