-
NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!
Walter G. Haut Affidavit Surfaces, The Smoking Gun? 'Witness To Roswell'
- Thread starter Miah
- Start date
Roger Knights
Skilled Investigator
From what I remember of the C2C interview, the manuscript was cast in concrete by the publisher in December, but the book wasn't actually published until a couple of weeks ago. In other words, the book was "in press" from Dec. through June.Miah said:
I wonder when (and if) "review copies" were sent out. Maybe none were, since there were no leaks.
P
Paul Kimball
Guest
Roger Knights said:
Even if true (and I'll take your word for it), this still means they (the authors and the family) waited well over a year, when they could have simply released the affidavit shortly after Haut's death in late 2005. Isn't that what "disclosure" advocates are always bashing the government for - not releasing information in a timely manner? Seems some in Roswell, for whatever reason (and profit is the only one that makes sense to me) are just as bad.
This reminds me a bit of Richard Hoagland on C2C about a year ago, teasing his Joshua Tree conference with the repeated assertion that he had ground-breaking revelations... but would withhold them until the conference, which you had to pay a lot of money to attend.
It also reminds me of the initial release of the fraudulent MJ-12 documents by Bill Moore et al...
Actually, it reminds me of all sorts of things in ufology, none of them, alas, good.
Paul
Miah said:
I don't know that I'd draw many conclusions from this. Consider for a moment, the sheer amount of kooks, frauds, and opportunists these guys probably had contacting them on a daily basis. If my life ever became the center of attention for the 'paranormal' crowd I'd be charging people to just say 'hello' to them. I'd consider it a cover charge that keeps people from wasting my time.
On the other hand, it seems many in the field are so hungry for attention they'll talk to anyone they can (ad naseum) for free . . . just for the extra 30 seconds of fame.
-DBTrek
Jersey John
Paranormal Novice
Why an "Affidavit"?
From what I've seen--admittedly it's possible there are actual scans of the "affidavit" that don't match the document I've seen posted everywhere--I don't even understand why this is being referred to as an "affidavit".
By every definition, an affidavit requires a swearing, in front of an authorized person, usually a notary. The document I've seen contains none of the standard language required for an affidavit, doesn't have any signatures, has no notary seal, date, statement of "having been sworn before me...", etc.. So unless I'm missing something or New Mexico law doesn't have the same requirements as most other States (and I sure don't know every State's requirements), why is this being referred to as an affidavit? More importantly, as posted, why is it anything more than a simple, unsubstantiated document that could have been invented by any 14 year old with a PC or even a typewriter?
On its face, what I've seen would have absolutely no legal sufficiency whatsoever, and even the witness's name and signature, let alone that of a notary or other authorized party (such as an attorney, who would typically note something like "Attorney at Law of the State of XX" under his/her signature), aren't disclosed. Produce the notary, fully disclose the circumstances, put the original document's signatures under professional examination, etc. Let's get at least a minimal level of verification before we accept an otherwise unacceptable (since the supposed author is dead!) statement.
I'm confused by all the excitement! What am I missing? We tend to being thick in Jersey!
From what I've seen--admittedly it's possible there are actual scans of the "affidavit" that don't match the document I've seen posted everywhere--I don't even understand why this is being referred to as an "affidavit".
By every definition, an affidavit requires a swearing, in front of an authorized person, usually a notary. The document I've seen contains none of the standard language required for an affidavit, doesn't have any signatures, has no notary seal, date, statement of "having been sworn before me...", etc.. So unless I'm missing something or New Mexico law doesn't have the same requirements as most other States (and I sure don't know every State's requirements), why is this being referred to as an affidavit? More importantly, as posted, why is it anything more than a simple, unsubstantiated document that could have been invented by any 14 year old with a PC or even a typewriter?
On its face, what I've seen would have absolutely no legal sufficiency whatsoever, and even the witness's name and signature, let alone that of a notary or other authorized party (such as an attorney, who would typically note something like "Attorney at Law of the State of XX" under his/her signature), aren't disclosed. Produce the notary, fully disclose the circumstances, put the original document's signatures under professional examination, etc. Let's get at least a minimal level of verification before we accept an otherwise unacceptable (since the supposed author is dead!) statement.
I'm confused by all the excitement! What am I missing? We tend to being thick in Jersey!
Why an "Affidavit"?
All good points. Since the document appears in a book I haven't seen I don't know whether there are scans/photos of it or not. I also had a few questions (listed earlier in the thread) regarding the document even if the paperwork looks correct.
Either way, at the end of the dsay we'll be left with the same deficiency of physical evidence. It will be a compelling statement if everything checks out . . . but it will still fail to prove anything.
Still . . . having a compelling, legitimate (if found to be so), statement to discuss would be an improvement over the current topics (ie The Chad Photo/Are ET's new-agers).
-DBTrek
Jersey John said:
All good points. Since the document appears in a book I haven't seen I don't know whether there are scans/photos of it or not. I also had a few questions (listed earlier in the thread) regarding the document even if the paperwork looks correct.
Either way, at the end of the dsay we'll be left with the same deficiency of physical evidence. It will be a compelling statement if everything checks out . . . but it will still fail to prove anything.
Still . . . having a compelling, legitimate (if found to be so), statement to discuss would be an improvement over the current topics (ie The Chad Photo/Are ET's new-agers).
-DBTrek
spookyparadigm
Skilled Investigator
It's likely his real affidavit, I'd bet. But I don't make much of it.
On my blog, I broke it down to the most important parts and compared it to previous elements of the story, and it seems sketchy. Here is the link
Spooky Paradigm: Analyzing Haut's Roswell Affidavit
On my blog, I broke it down to the most important parts and compared it to previous elements of the story, and it seems sketchy. Here is the link
Spooky Paradigm: Analyzing Haut's Roswell Affidavit
Jersey John
Paranormal Novice
Sorry, but the more I look into this the more suspicious I become that this is not what it purports to be.
The document doesn't conform to the requirements, as defined on the Secretary of State's website, for a legitimate notarized statement in New Mexico or pretty much anywhere (seal, signature, statement as to swearing or acknowledgment, commission expiration date, county, etc.). The alleged strength of this document is that it was a "death bed affidavit"; i.e., that it was a sworn statement in contemplation of death. Regardless of the contents of the document, which could easily have been created by anyone, it doesn't seem to meet the threshold for which it has been given such credibility. It does not appear to be a sworn, or even properly acknowledged, notarized statement. If the foundation is faulty the house won't stand.
Again, I have not seen even a scan or photo of the original document, and that might clear up these issues. Until then, this needs to be treated with great suspicion.
The document doesn't conform to the requirements, as defined on the Secretary of State's website, for a legitimate notarized statement in New Mexico or pretty much anywhere (seal, signature, statement as to swearing or acknowledgment, commission expiration date, county, etc.). The alleged strength of this document is that it was a "death bed affidavit"; i.e., that it was a sworn statement in contemplation of death. Regardless of the contents of the document, which could easily have been created by anyone, it doesn't seem to meet the threshold for which it has been given such credibility. It does not appear to be a sworn, or even properly acknowledged, notarized statement. If the foundation is faulty the house won't stand.
Again, I have not seen even a scan or photo of the original document, and that might clear up these issues. Until then, this needs to be treated with great suspicion.
CapnG said:
This would seem to be rather an extreme attempt at creating a hoax, particularly when it's also featured in a book.
I don't pretend to have any final information, of course. Call me curious but skeptical.
M
MarsAve
Guest
Walter G. Haut Affidavit Surfaces, The Smoking Gun?
This it was I notice............
I'll say, in the current day and age of news coverage - any other story, if it came out on a death-bed confession as we'll call Walter Haut's statement - any other scenario related like that to Anna Nicole Smith- Michael Jackson - Lindsay Lohan - someone shoots up a campus - any sports KIA that was burned for steroids - the Media would be all over it and Oprah would have a tearful show( and no I don't watch her show...)......
Why does it only show up on lessor TV news outlets/websites- when in this day and age...the revenue generated news shows you'd think would be all over each other stuffing the other on the wayside to "be the FIRST" to report such a huge story?
It doesn't add up that Walter Haut would do this 'just for fun' to be released on the 60th anniversary - what if Walter had lived to be 100? The affidavit would still have to be signed and dated so timing for the 60th anniversary is only marginal- at best-- and I can't think of any reason why he'd do that unless he'd have something to say, and want it recorded. That is the way things are done. (Nicole Simpson-Brown left a note and photos after being beat up by OJ Simspon-was in fear for her life - pointed us in the right direction if she ever got murdered...) People do that for a reason--If Walter had exposed a bunch of covert OPS by US CIA Agents to smuggle Red-Chinese agents into the country over 60 years ago - would that make front page headlines......? But bring up this subject - and ZIP! NADA- I know nothing..!!! becomes the norm for the large main stream media centers...who are largely owned by .....whom?.......and there is a reason for this to not be reported....if you've done your homework over the years - you know why!
My statement is the Walter Haut death-bed confession affidavit about the Roswell Incident is 'absolutley' true.
MarsAve
This it was I notice............
I'll say, in the current day and age of news coverage - any other story, if it came out on a death-bed confession as we'll call Walter Haut's statement - any other scenario related like that to Anna Nicole Smith- Michael Jackson - Lindsay Lohan - someone shoots up a campus - any sports KIA that was burned for steroids - the Media would be all over it and Oprah would have a tearful show( and no I don't watch her show...)......
Why does it only show up on lessor TV news outlets/websites- when in this day and age...the revenue generated news shows you'd think would be all over each other stuffing the other on the wayside to "be the FIRST" to report such a huge story?
It doesn't add up that Walter Haut would do this 'just for fun' to be released on the 60th anniversary - what if Walter had lived to be 100? The affidavit would still have to be signed and dated so timing for the 60th anniversary is only marginal- at best-- and I can't think of any reason why he'd do that unless he'd have something to say, and want it recorded. That is the way things are done. (Nicole Simpson-Brown left a note and photos after being beat up by OJ Simspon-was in fear for her life - pointed us in the right direction if she ever got murdered...) People do that for a reason--If Walter had exposed a bunch of covert OPS by US CIA Agents to smuggle Red-Chinese agents into the country over 60 years ago - would that make front page headlines......? But bring up this subject - and ZIP! NADA- I know nothing..!!! becomes the norm for the large main stream media centers...who are largely owned by .....whom?.......and there is a reason for this to not be reported....if you've done your homework over the years - you know why!
My statement is the Walter Haut death-bed confession affidavit about the Roswell Incident is 'absolutley' true.
MarsAve
Brian Now
Paranormal Pimp
Walter G. Haut Affidavit Surfaces, The Smoking Gun?
I don't blame the media one bit for ignoring this stuff. This field is so full of media-seeking crackpots that they really have very little reason to follow it. They need something really tangible at this point, not anecdotal evidence and I don't blame them. This Haut thing, which could be true I suppose, is going to matter mostly to people already interested in Roswell.
MarsAve said:
I don't blame the media one bit for ignoring this stuff. This field is so full of media-seeking crackpots that they really have very little reason to follow it. They need something really tangible at this point, not anecdotal evidence and I don't blame them. This Haut thing, which could be true I suppose, is going to matter mostly to people already interested in Roswell.
Miah
Skilled Investigator
Walter G. Haut Affidavit Surfaces, The Smoking Gun?
Was it odd to anyone else that on Larry King, Haut's daughter didn't seem to know (or at least say) anything about her father seeing bodies? She was asked if he saw bodies, and she said no. It was like she didn't believe the affidavit or did not believe it. What's up with that?
UPDATE: She was on Hannity and Colmes the next night and held up the affidavit and talked about him seeing the bodies.
Go figure.
Was it odd to anyone else that on Larry King, Haut's daughter didn't seem to know (or at least say) anything about her father seeing bodies? She was asked if he saw bodies, and she said no. It was like she didn't believe the affidavit or did not believe it. What's up with that?
UPDATE: She was on Hannity and Colmes the next night and held up the affidavit and talked about him seeing the bodies.
Go figure.
M
MarsAve
Guest
BRAIN NOW - do you really believe what you wrote there.....? The reason they don't dig 'extensively' is because the media mgmt won't let them, unless they can make a 'lil green men' story out of it at 6:28pm.......with a slight chuckle at the end.
There is far too much evidence, thousands of very well written books, many very established investigators, all exposing many, very accurate tid-bits of the whole cover up - (all this without the crack-pots.....) Sure there are many crackpots involved, but the serious investigators are virtually ignored by main-stream media. Most folks won't believe what is being told to them on alternate news agencies, but if ABC,CBS-NBC ran the story, it would be viewed differently....this has been going on for many years....!! The most recent and obvious media black-out was the Phoenix Lights of March 1997. Two seperate events that night in Phoenix, quashed by the mainstream media..and they 'know' it. It is very obvious when thousands of people witness such a weird event, and it's virtually ignored - nationwide...albiet a few local stations ran it...it was not reported in any major news outlets, other than USA Today - on March 14th, 1997......The UFO over ORD...last Nov 2006...? Highly qualified people reporting a UFO over the gate.......virtually ignored......it held it's own until the FAA lady made the too comforting 'weather inversion' story, and Boom,,,the story is gone - except alternative news agencies.....
Naw, I actually 'blame' the mainstream media for letting this happen...people know every bump and dimple of Anna Nicole Smith's death, ad nauseum - but fully investigate a UFO hovering over a terminal in this day and age after 9/11--reported by highly qualified aviation personel at Chicago - ORD in November 2006...and pretty much nothing in the media.......?
MarsAve
Brian Now
Paranormal Pimp
MarsAve said:
Yes, I absolutely do believe what I wrote. I don't mean to say that the media doesn't focus on silly crap, of course they do. And I don't mean to say that they don't trivialize UFO/Paranormal related topics, of course they do. But from their point of view, why not?
I mean, take the Phoenix Lights, whatever that thing really was, on camera it was just a bunch of lights in the sky. That's it. There is only so much reporting to do on that, just so much anecdotal evidence to discuss before it gets boring. It leads nowhere. It's true that the public likes a good mystery, but usually in more mundane forms like the latest missing white female...or who killed so-and-so.
Roswell is an interesting story, but still there is no physical evidence and it has lead nowhere.
Maybe we'll get more information about the O'Hare incident, but I have yet to even see a good photograph of this day time "object" so many people apparently saw. Are there any, by the way?
Jersey John
Paranormal Novice
MarsAve wrote
First, Haut and his daughter, Julie Shuster, were hardly objective bystanders or disinterested parties. Ms. Shuster runs the Roswell UFO Museum, and, from all reports is on salary, not as a volunteer. That very same Museum was apparently founded by she and her father, Haut. The more plausible, and outrageous, the story the better business is, and this Museum is quite critical to Roswell's economy. If the entire Roswell incident is debunked, an industry implodes...an industry upon which Julie Shuster apparently relies. An elderly man looking to help secure his daughter's future will do and say many things. And it's easiest to do it in a manner--after death--which ensures you can't be challenged or refuted.
Would Haut, by all accounts, swear falsely? Who knows. But we know his earlier statements never included mention of having seen alien bodies. Of more importance, I don't see anything in the published replicas that indicates this was a sworn statement, that it meets any of the criteria required by the State of New Mexico as a validly sworn or acknowledged statement. I have noticed that Tom Carey refers to it, almost too carefully, as a "sealed statement", not a sworn statement or an affidavit. Perhaps I read too much into what I see as his carefully parsed words, but there is a major legal distinction between a "sealed statement"--which requires nothing more than an envelope and a moist tongue--and a "sworn statement" or "affidavit"--which requires an oath swearing or acknowledgment in front of an attorney or notary public. Further a notary public, the attesting agent in this instance, needs to affix his/her seal, county, date commission expires, etc. None of these requirements, or a statement that Haut swore to the validity or, at least, that this was his statement, is present on the published document. All we have is the name of an alleged notary and a witnesses first name. (By the way, why have a witness AND a notary? A notary's job, by definition is to attest that the document was signed in his/her presence under oath. Wouldn't the mystery witness by redundant?)
If this is correct, what Haut "sealed" was simply another unverified statement by a father looking to leave something of value to a cherished daughter.
There's way too many moving (including the site of the crash which has changed some 7 times over the last decade or so) parts in all this. I'm anxious to hear how a little Paracast light will shine on Carey and Schmitt this week.
Agreed. But Let's look at a few questions that can reasonably be raised on this.
First, Haut and his daughter, Julie Shuster, were hardly objective bystanders or disinterested parties. Ms. Shuster runs the Roswell UFO Museum, and, from all reports is on salary, not as a volunteer. That very same Museum was apparently founded by she and her father, Haut. The more plausible, and outrageous, the story the better business is, and this Museum is quite critical to Roswell's economy. If the entire Roswell incident is debunked, an industry implodes...an industry upon which Julie Shuster apparently relies. An elderly man looking to help secure his daughter's future will do and say many things. And it's easiest to do it in a manner--after death--which ensures you can't be challenged or refuted.
Would Haut, by all accounts, swear falsely? Who knows. But we know his earlier statements never included mention of having seen alien bodies. Of more importance, I don't see anything in the published replicas that indicates this was a sworn statement, that it meets any of the criteria required by the State of New Mexico as a validly sworn or acknowledged statement. I have noticed that Tom Carey refers to it, almost too carefully, as a "sealed statement", not a sworn statement or an affidavit. Perhaps I read too much into what I see as his carefully parsed words, but there is a major legal distinction between a "sealed statement"--which requires nothing more than an envelope and a moist tongue--and a "sworn statement" or "affidavit"--which requires an oath swearing or acknowledgment in front of an attorney or notary public. Further a notary public, the attesting agent in this instance, needs to affix his/her seal, county, date commission expires, etc. None of these requirements, or a statement that Haut swore to the validity or, at least, that this was his statement, is present on the published document. All we have is the name of an alleged notary and a witnesses first name. (By the way, why have a witness AND a notary? A notary's job, by definition is to attest that the document was signed in his/her presence under oath. Wouldn't the mystery witness by redundant?)
If this is correct, what Haut "sealed" was simply another unverified statement by a father looking to leave something of value to a cherished daughter.
There's way too many moving (including the site of the crash which has changed some 7 times over the last decade or so) parts in all this. I'm anxious to hear how a little Paracast light will shine on Carey and Schmitt this week.
M
MarsAve
Guest
From Brian Now-
Ok, your statement leads me to believe you either missed the whole story on the Phoenix Lights - or forgot to mention the earlier events. The 'continual' airing of the arcing lights over Phoenix in the later video's shots, are very misleading - enough for the average viewer to be mis-lead and think this was the whole event, when it wasn't. It shows what the power of the media can do. That is called 'Spin'. Dig deep, the NUFORC website has an excellent, well researched "case brief" on Phoenix Lights - which any mainstream media outlet can click and read it--any maybe ask a few questions----but nooooo---and to make note, most of the shows on TV media that talk about the Phoenix Lights, always, and I mean always, fail to report the entire nights events, in chronological order - to put it in perspective. A quick shot of the lights in the Arc over Phoenix - and 30 seconds of chatter, doesn't do it justice....I distinctly remember reports, but i don't have a reference, is the interviews with hundreds of witnesses after the fact - including very young children with no apparent reason to lie, when asked "where did you see the lights..?' ,and, most pointed 'straight up'. Not over there over the hills, but, straight up..! What about the dark - hand held video footage shot earlier in the evening? Your comment about 'no physical evidence' is true, because it was all taken by the AAF boyz from Roswell-and beyond. That, is well documented. I can imagine that was real easy to do back in 1947. The real experts who write the books and do the Investigations, are acting now like they are right-on after many many years of research - but the stone cold silence of the brick-wall is very daunting, and if I was sitting on a Grand Jury on a preliminary hearing, seeing if this case goes to court based on the evidence provided, we're going to court..!
I work for a very large company in central CA and I've come across 3 co-workers, all 20-30yrs older than me-then- who have had 'exposure' to UFO incidents-all Military. These three were introduced to me because I have no problem talking about the subject-most of my co-workers know this - I don't hide it- all of the 3 listed next - all would only talk VERY candidly about what happened - and then leave- most stating something about 'not being able to talk about it' these are all 1980's and 1990's quik talks--Number 1) was early 1960's radar sighting over Newfoundland - on duty -tracking 3 objects in formation at 1600mph+ 'on verified radar' was all he would say- and when the event was over - all of the ATC guys were interviewed by superiors - and told to never mention it, all of the data was taken. The 2nd one was in a Military Police unit early 1960's and guarded a clean up of a perfectly round 30' diameter circle 'somewhere in Florida' where they completely dug up the ground 3 feet deep overnight- and into the next morning- all cordoned off- and replaced it with same area dirt- in a square pattern, to 'throw people off, and alter the ground' was all he said......The 3rd was a Vietnam Veteran(VV), in a different office I worked in recently- whom I had no idea was a VV - and one day, after working with him, he stated to me( after him knowing i was 'into the subject') he told me he was in special forces in Vietnam, and he could tell me a very interesting story - but then would have to kill me.......all he told me was 'you're not wasting your time' -& ' I can't tell you or I'll get in trouble'..after i discussed a few other events...and he was dead serious....all 3 of these gentlemen are retired now -all Senior engineers in our company- one was the office manager-- one has died(FLA case)..the one from the Newfoundland case - still says it was absolutley true - but they have no idea what they tracked at 1600mph...that day -these 3 men weren't screw-off's-- none of them talk about such extrodinary events - why?
Jersey John:
you have some good points - the only thing I have a tough time believing, is Roswell museum is that big of a draw - sure there may be some income there - but that alone can't be the sole source of Walter Haut's confession - I mean, this guy names names - and the few plays that Gen Ramey pulled are classic Military smoke and mirrors. If you dissect what he did, it was a classic throw the bait another way and let the dogs bite...................the fact that the Museum is a draw for tourist - will also make it a vacant building if it is found out that Haut was way off base. I don't take any fault in the way the letter was written, as long as there was a witness may make it even more credible - as I feel it is. Anyone can go on vacation and send a sealed letter via US Mail to a relative dealing with their assest in case something happens or they die in a car crash-- and opened in front of a Notary Public is considered legal - nothing fancy. Cheap and legal.
But both of your answers are fun to chat - keep researching - you both have good points. I always have figured if the Big Boyz of UFO research have gotten this far - in 60yrs since Roswell - Stanton Friedman, Richard Dolan, Peter Davenport and many more - if these guys are still pushing for answers, we're in for a helluva ride.....listen to what they say now, not what they ask!
MarsAve
..........................
Ok, your statement leads me to believe you either missed the whole story on the Phoenix Lights - or forgot to mention the earlier events. The 'continual' airing of the arcing lights over Phoenix in the later video's shots, are very misleading - enough for the average viewer to be mis-lead and think this was the whole event, when it wasn't. It shows what the power of the media can do. That is called 'Spin'. Dig deep, the NUFORC website has an excellent, well researched "case brief" on Phoenix Lights - which any mainstream media outlet can click and read it--any maybe ask a few questions----but nooooo---and to make note, most of the shows on TV media that talk about the Phoenix Lights, always, and I mean always, fail to report the entire nights events, in chronological order - to put it in perspective. A quick shot of the lights in the Arc over Phoenix - and 30 seconds of chatter, doesn't do it justice....I distinctly remember reports, but i don't have a reference, is the interviews with hundreds of witnesses after the fact - including very young children with no apparent reason to lie, when asked "where did you see the lights..?' ,and, most pointed 'straight up'. Not over there over the hills, but, straight up..! What about the dark - hand held video footage shot earlier in the evening? Your comment about 'no physical evidence' is true, because it was all taken by the AAF boyz from Roswell-and beyond. That, is well documented. I can imagine that was real easy to do back in 1947. The real experts who write the books and do the Investigations, are acting now like they are right-on after many many years of research - but the stone cold silence of the brick-wall is very daunting, and if I was sitting on a Grand Jury on a preliminary hearing, seeing if this case goes to court based on the evidence provided, we're going to court..!
I work for a very large company in central CA and I've come across 3 co-workers, all 20-30yrs older than me-then- who have had 'exposure' to UFO incidents-all Military. These three were introduced to me because I have no problem talking about the subject-most of my co-workers know this - I don't hide it- all of the 3 listed next - all would only talk VERY candidly about what happened - and then leave- most stating something about 'not being able to talk about it' these are all 1980's and 1990's quik talks--Number 1) was early 1960's radar sighting over Newfoundland - on duty -tracking 3 objects in formation at 1600mph+ 'on verified radar' was all he would say- and when the event was over - all of the ATC guys were interviewed by superiors - and told to never mention it, all of the data was taken. The 2nd one was in a Military Police unit early 1960's and guarded a clean up of a perfectly round 30' diameter circle 'somewhere in Florida' where they completely dug up the ground 3 feet deep overnight- and into the next morning- all cordoned off- and replaced it with same area dirt- in a square pattern, to 'throw people off, and alter the ground' was all he said......The 3rd was a Vietnam Veteran(VV), in a different office I worked in recently- whom I had no idea was a VV - and one day, after working with him, he stated to me( after him knowing i was 'into the subject') he told me he was in special forces in Vietnam, and he could tell me a very interesting story - but then would have to kill me.......all he told me was 'you're not wasting your time' -& ' I can't tell you or I'll get in trouble'..after i discussed a few other events...and he was dead serious....all 3 of these gentlemen are retired now -all Senior engineers in our company- one was the office manager-- one has died(FLA case)..the one from the Newfoundland case - still says it was absolutley true - but they have no idea what they tracked at 1600mph...that day -these 3 men weren't screw-off's-- none of them talk about such extrodinary events - why?
Jersey John:
you have some good points - the only thing I have a tough time believing, is Roswell museum is that big of a draw - sure there may be some income there - but that alone can't be the sole source of Walter Haut's confession - I mean, this guy names names - and the few plays that Gen Ramey pulled are classic Military smoke and mirrors. If you dissect what he did, it was a classic throw the bait another way and let the dogs bite...................the fact that the Museum is a draw for tourist - will also make it a vacant building if it is found out that Haut was way off base. I don't take any fault in the way the letter was written, as long as there was a witness may make it even more credible - as I feel it is. Anyone can go on vacation and send a sealed letter via US Mail to a relative dealing with their assest in case something happens or they die in a car crash-- and opened in front of a Notary Public is considered legal - nothing fancy. Cheap and legal.
But both of your answers are fun to chat - keep researching - you both have good points. I always have figured if the Big Boyz of UFO research have gotten this far - in 60yrs since Roswell - Stanton Friedman, Richard Dolan, Peter Davenport and many more - if these guys are still pushing for answers, we're in for a helluva ride.....listen to what they say now, not what they ask!
MarsAve
Brian Now
Paranormal Pimp
MarsAve said:
I mentioned the anecdotal evidence, to the media that is all eye witness accounts really are on things in the sky, don't you think? And your examples after that are things you are saying that you have heard...and they might all be 100% right I realize! But why should the media care about any of this, when all we can come up with is bad video or accounts of stuff we say we saw and can't prove?
Don't get me wrong...there are TONS of stories out there that deserve more attention than the Paris Hilton-type crap. I would absolutely love there to be more attention to UFO sightings, even old ones. But I just can't blame the media too much at this point...not with the dearth of evidence out there, not to mention the antics of people like HE-WHO-SHALL-NOT-BE-NAMED!
