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 12:43:38 -0800
Archived: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:12:36 -0500
Subject: Re: Randle On Haut's Affidavit - Part Two

>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 11:05:19 +0100
>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


>>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.


>>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.


>Personally, I would add just a few comments:

>After reading the comments of Kevin Randle, and having talked
>with Tom Carey and Don Schmitt, the affidavit seems credible to
>me, but it will remain controversial because of the contradictory
>statements made by Walter Haut, and what appeared to be memory
>problems. Like you, I regret that this debate was not clarified
>when it was still time.


>Because of that, it cannot be retained as a major document,
>either pro or against the UFO crash hypothesis. Anyway, the case
>rests on many other credible testimonies.

Precisely! However, it (the statement) does provide additional
leads . . ..

>To me, one good reason for which Walter Haut made contradictory
>statements was probably a moral conflict between his desire to
>tell his story and his will to respect his commitment to the
>protection of secrecy.

You are in good company, and I don't personally discount that;
however, it's not a trade-off for the memory issue which I
believe is real, and evidenced on more then one occasion.

>When I met him twice in 1995, he was in perfectly good mental
>shape, and he insisted on the very tight discipline on the base.
>I was intrigued at the time by his insistence, but I think now
>that we was trying to make me understand that he could not tell
>his whole story.

Walter's generation as a whole, and particularly those who
served took their duty and oaths seriously - he certainly was a
patriot in every sense of the word!

>Just another comment: I don't see a necessary contradiction
>between the alleged trip of General Ramey and Colonel DuBose to
>Roswell, and the trip of Major Marcel to Fort Worth. They may
>have decided to have him there just to play a role in the
>balloon cover-up.

Given the gravity of the situation, one would think the
absence of superordinates would be an oddity.



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