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: Frank Warren <frank-warren.nul>
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 12:08:42 -0800
Archived: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:08:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two


>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 14:50:09 -0800
>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.

As stated previously (a couple of times), for those who saw the
C & B interview, although people's opinions vary on the
causality of the symptoms, all agree that there were memory
issues; some attributed it to the normal aging process; Wendy
called it brain farts etc.

For me personally, I watched the tape with my wife the first
time, and the initial stages of Alzheimer's came to mind, as
we've experienced (with friends and or family) this in our lives
albeit it moderately.

Since then I discussed this issue with a clinical psychologist
friend of mind who educated me on that particular disease and
it's safe to say that certainly wasn't the case.

Also, and to be clear when I use the term dementia, I'm using
it in it's broadest definition and (as stated back in July)
it's not my intention to infer that Walter was a blithering
idiot during the interview, only that he exhibited signs of
some form of dementia (in my unprofessional opinion.

For further clarity, and to reiterate what I said in July, I
base my opinion solely on the video tape interview; Wendy who
chimed in at that time attributed his brain-farts to his senior
years, no more or no less; I respect Wendy's opinion, as I do
yours David, and I certainly yield to those who knew him
personally (as Wendy did.

All that said, we're still left with a memory deficit regardless
of the causality.

>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.

Again, I certainly respect your opinion David, and obviously I
can't make comment on your interview, as I wasn't there, and as
you state, it wasn't recorded; however, based on Walter's
demeanor in the C & B interview I would question if he were
faking memory loss in yours (interview.

The Roswell Incident was but a component in the C & B
interview, as it was about Walter Haut the man and his life.
His memory lapses went beyond his time at RAAF e.g., he
couldn't remember where he did his basis training, where he was
stationed when he exited the service etc.

>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.

Again, for clarity, I am not trying to imply that Walter was
incoherent only that he showed signs of dementia; additionally,
I have previously ceded the fact that it could be related to the
normal aging process, although I personally believe it was more
then that. Again, regardless of the causality the symptoms were
there.

Finally, in regards to your doubts, I can only say, seeing is
believing. :>)

>>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.

I referenced the King piece not to reiterate his public stance
but to show another example of his confusion; which by the way,
some have suggested was related to his diabetes and of course
that is certainly possible.

Let us not forget that the C & B interview was done under the
same dictum as the Schmitt affidavit i.e., not to be released
until his (Walter's death.

>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.

I don't question any motives, and as I have stated before, I
believe Walter did see bodies and or wreckage; this is based
more on what I know he told people privately; However, that and
$5.00 gets you a gallon of gasoline!

The Schmitt affidavit is an anecdote of anecdote performed by
legal methodology and endorsed by its namesake; in regards to
quality of evidence it's weak!

It also raises more questions:

1. Why didn't Walter write it himself? (Which was presumed
initially [when the book came out] and precipitated this
dialogue. In your view he was perfectly coherent... so why
not?

2. Why was it necessary to have a doctor, monitor his mental
competency? (This according to Schmitt.

3. Why not do another video?

4. At the very least, why not do audio in support of the
affidavit?

5. Why wasn't the affidavit released when Walter passed?

6. How come Walter's daughter doesn't want the C & B video
interview to be seen?

7. Why did Schmitt accuse Dennis and Wendy of blindsiding Walter
in the interview, when there was a written outline presented in
advance, as well the subject matter being discussed on tape
during the first 10 minutes of the interview?

>>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.

This of course is true and a valid point; however, Wendy and
Dennis were both friends of Walter's, and this was a very
intimate interview so in my view there was no pressure opposed
to say an interview done by the mainstream media.

>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.

Agreed.

>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.

David, you wrote previously:

"He claimed he couldn't remember clearly what had happened over
50 years ago and anybody who said they could wasn't being
truthful." (Which is why I quoted it.

I don't mean to be contentious, but Walter stating that he
couldn't remember clearly what had happened over 50 years ago
that sounds personal to me.

You are now saying he made a generalization, please clarify.

><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.

Which again evokes the question, why not write the affidavit
himself?

>>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.

In the Whiting interview done in 1990 Walter said:

In the next staff meeting, which was about a week later [which
would be the 14th]--I believe we held them at that time every
Monday - he [Blanchard] made some comment about our agenda, what
we were going to talk about.

This (also) completely contradicts the Schmitt affidavit, and
Blanchard was off-base the following week which brings us back
to a memory issue, and this was back in 1990!

>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.

This is where people have to come to their own respective
conclusions in regards to the taped interview; I don't view it
in the same light as you do David.

It would be interesting to find out if the French film crew
caught any of Walter's comments on tape; perhaps Gildas could
lend a hand in that regard given his geography.

>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.

Here I respectfully disagree. Again, this interview was done
under the same condition as the Schmitt affidavit, i.e., not to
see the light of day until Walter's passing.

>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.

Again we differ in opinions.

><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.

Walter wasn't a 'doddering' old manin the C & B interview
either; he had problems remembering things on a broad spectrum.
This isn't the first occasion where Walter has admitted having
trouble remembering things from so long ago. This occurred in
the Whiting interview (1990), C & B, Omni, Larry King, etc. I
believe it is demonstrable.

>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.

David, what you see as an explanation, I see as further
embodiment in regards to how weak the affidavit is as
evidence from a public perspective.

>>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.

As stated previously, the value of the Schmitt affidavit will
vary from individual to individual; at this juncture I think
all that can be said has been. For me personally, there are
indeed items that can be culled from the declaration that merit
further investigation, i.e., Ramey being in Roswell on the 8th
for one!

Surely it's more productive to attempt to verify the
statements made in the declaration then to continue to beat this
dead horse!

Since July, myself and others have been active towards achieving
that goal. Obviously putting Ramey in Roswell on the 8th, or
close to it would be monumental to Roswell (the event) in
general, as well as putting a bow on the Schmitt affidavit.


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