"Haut then tells how Colonel Blanchard took him to 'Building 84' -- one of the hangars at Roswell -- and showed him the craft itself. He describes a metallic egg-shaped object around 12- 15 feet in length and around 6 feet wide. He said he saw no windows, wings, tail, landing gear or any other feature.
"He saw two bodies on the floor, partially covered by a tarpaulin. They are described in his statement as about 4 feet tall, with disproportionately large heads.
With due respect to the late Walter Haut, I don't believe a word of this. While deathbed UFO confessions can sometimes offer needed insight, there's no reason to think Haut's dramatic recollections are accurate. As a highly visible witness to the Roswell events in 1947, Haut had every opportunity -- and ample commercial reason -- to come forth with these revelations while alive. That he failed to do so argues compellingly that his original testimony (relatively lackluster in retrospect) comprised the extent of his knowledge.
4 comments:
I have to say Mac I'm a little disappointed by your reaction.
Personally I had the exact opposite reaction to this story. Instead of whoring himself out like every other tell-all Roswell "experiencer", Haut held onto his cards for the most meaningful public impact. His refusal to sell out adds profound credibility to his final claims.
We have to keep in mind that if Roswell events are indeed true there is a very dark level to all of this. Perhaps he knew the consequences of espousing this info publicly while alive. Those consequences may have had residual fallout for his family.
Denny
You can look at this either way. Personally, I find it amazing that Haut didn't speak about this while living. But as you suggest, maybe he thought it would go hard on him if he talked.
Of course, if his story is sincere then Roswell just got a hell of a lot more interesting.
http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2007/jul/m03-010.shtml
From: Wendy Connors
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 00:44:22 +0000
Archived: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 09:13:00 -0400
Subject: Re: The Walter G. Haut Affidavit - Connors
OK. Let's talk brass tacks in research and get off the B.S.
train regarding the Walter Haut affidavit.
1. There are inconistencies with the oral history interview from 2000 and Walter's affidavit two years later. This isn't earth shaking news, but it does not mean Walter Haut was senile or suffering from dementia. This is absolute intellectual nonsense and rubbish.
2. I talked with Walter many times and interviewed him on videotape twice. Walter was one of the most conistent people I've ever met. A careful man in respect for the Air Corps and his country's secrets. Yet, he gave out just enough to keep people interested and researching something he knew to have happened because it might be good for the youth of the nation to become interested in science and journeying to the stars. He believed in the youth of Roswell and the nation. A rare trait not found in current generations in my opinion.
3. In March, 2000, Walter gave an oral history to Dennis Balthaser and myself. He had told me several times that he would like to do so and leave what he could remember for history. He did. He embellished nothing.
4. He indicated that the crash of an unknown object came down near Roswell, he released Col. Blanchard's press announcement, attended the meeting in the conference room the next day when Gen. Roger Ramey gave orders to cover the incident up, that there may have been a few bodies but he remembered only the one he saw that was injured and dead and the object was damaged and mainly in one piece. A man of integrity gives an overall confirmation that researchers and the general public wanted to know from history. Hardly an non-credible witness by any stretch of the imagination.
5. Walter told me in private conversations some things that are not in the oral history or affidavit. Things he didn't want to go on record. I am slowly working on these things and have nothing further to say about it.
6. In my opinion the affidavit signed by Walter Haut is basically conistent with what he told Dennis and me, but contain embellishments and errors. I believe Walter signed the affidavit, but didn't do the embellishments himself. The point is that he was a credible witness to the Roswell incident and confirmed the truth in a broad manner without feeling that he betrayed the Air Corps or the government. His own statement in the oral history bears this out: "I think some things were released that shouldn't have been released." Thus his own justification for giving the overall truth since the information was officially released. But, he was very, very careful. He cannot be faulted for it.
7. Which is closer to the truth? Walter's own words or a statement written by others and signed by Walter? You be the judge. I'll go with the proverbial hourse's mouth interview and knowing the man. But that's just me.
Enough said.
Wendy Connors
Mac:
I concur with you on Haut 100%. Much ado about nothing. If I ever get around to blogging again, I'll explain in more detail at The Other Side of Truth. Let's all recall, however, that Haut vouched for Frank Kaufmann, who was shown to be a fraud, and Glenn Dennis, who similarly has been exposed. This stuff about alien bodies, long after there was any reason for him to keep it secret, is bogus. Indeed, I interviewed Haut and Dennis in 2001 - they sat right next to each other, and Dennis told his story about dead bodies etc., and Haut said not a word. Don't tell me it was his "oath" either - he had already talked plenty about Roswell, and broken his oath if he had given such a thing. He seemed like a nice man, but it is my considered opinion that he was either manipulated by unscrupulous researchers for their own ends (and lets remember that in the case of the affidavit we're dealing with Don Schmitt), he lied in order to give new life to the Roswell story, which his family still has a financial stake in, or he was simply an old man who had heard so many stories like Dennis' that he came to believe them himself. This is the most charitable explanation I can come up with.
Paul
Paul
Post a Comment