Legal Affidavit: Walter Haut Discloses Roswell Truth (released after death)

Originally posted by SuicideVirus
So it basically still all boils down to what you want to believe. Whatever backs up what you already think. Either you think he was lying all those years of denying seeing the ship and aliens, possibly to protect himself and his family from either UFO kooks or the government, or he was lying in his "deathbed" affidavit, signing something he didn't completely understand, that his associates or his heirs might benefit from after his death.

I'm just glad it finally puts the matter to rest, once and for all.

This has to be one of the most illogical posts I've read since I've been coming to ATS. I think every freethinker can read this thread and see that it's pre-existing beliefs that drive most skeptics. Their not interested in seeking the truth, their interested in seeking answers that placate their belief.

So a man signs an affidavit about what he saw and he could have made millions from these revelations when he was alive but we are supposed to accept the skeptics twisted logic that he was old, coerced and crazy. Not based on any evidence but strictly based on the skeptics pre-existing belief. This is not an example of a freethinker but a serious closed mind.

Following this same twisted logic, you can say Woodward and Bernstein convinced Mark Felt that he was deepthroat in his old age in order to hide the true deepthroats identity and it's true not based on any evidence but because it supports my pre-existing beliefs that Pat Buchannan was deepthroat.

I even think Felt denied he was deepthroat a couple of times, so if you accept the skeptics line of reason Mark Felt has to be lying about being deepthroat because he denied it when he was first asked.

Again, if Haut would have said that the story that the government said about Roswell was 100% true, they would love it because it agrees with what they already believe. Since it's the opposite the guy is old and crazy.

I'm not saying it's true or not, what I'm saying is there's ZERO evidence that it's false. The skeptic seems to equate there opinions to actual evidence and that's silly.

[edit on 3-7-2007 by polomontana]

[edit on 3-7-2007 by polomontana]

Originally posted by polomontana
Following this same twisted logic, you can say Woodward and Bernstein convinced Mark Felt that he was deepthroat in his old age in order to hide the true deepthroats identity and it's true not based on any evidence but because it supports my pre-existing beliefs that Pat Buchannan was deepthroat.

I think you might be onto something here. I think you should run it by the folks over on the Watergate conspiracy threads and see what they think. Everybody has a reason to lie. Follow the money. It makes sense.

This Haut seems not to be so credible after all:
redstarfilms.blogspot.com...

Welcome back to skeptical.

Originally posted by Grey Basket
This Haut seems not to be so credible after all:
redstarfilms.blogspot.com...

Welcome back to skeptical.

This piece is just one guys opinion on it, just as others have stated here in this post or on other sites. He is has no additional information or fact on anything. He brings up the same arguements about not bringing it forward earlier and about being old and dimented.

I do find it interesting that Haut and Glenn Dennis requested money for an interview, but I can't say it makes them guilty right off the bat. When Stan Friedman talked to them they agreed to do it for free.

The author then uses this to elude that the Haut family continued to have financial interest and that is why the 2002 affadavit was vreated. He is almost implying that Schmitt and Carey may have been that financial source. The article does not list any proof, only a belief that this is what may have happened. Now, if that author had brought forward some type of evidence that Schmitt and Carey have been providing financial contributions to the Hauts for the past 5 years, he would have something. Instead, its just his belief. Can someone find any real evidence of this? If they can't then its of no benefit to the facts. I would love to have someone that can bring evidence of this into account.

In another point he speaks of a man named Frank Kaufman who is a know fraud. It was discovered after his death that he had forged documents to back up his story. They were documents that his widow found after his death. Some argue they were planted, but nevertheless they were found. Walter Haut was the man who suggested to Stan Friedman that they talk to Frank Kaufman to get the inside scoop. That calls Haut into speculation because his recommendation of a fraud. There is only evidence that Haut recommended him based on the information that Kaufman had told him. He may have just fell for the song and dance, not have been a part of it. If Haut had truly witnessed events, who was he not to believe someone who said they saw the same things. Nevertheless facts came forward to discredit Kaufman. HERE an interesting summary on the matter.

Try to only focus on facts. I'm not against exposing a fraud, I would love to see it, but I want evidence and not just opinions (though I like to hear those too).
I only want to know the truth. Yes, I can handle the truth.

This post is not in reply to anyone else specifically, but the issue of dementia has come up several times. I'm wondering where it comes from. In Corso's case, he said he was a member of the National Security Council when he was, in fact, a staff member. People supporting Corso have said, well, yes, he did, but he was suffering from dementia late in his life and may not have understood what he was signing and it's a small point anyway. Now we have Haut's affadavit, and the same issue comes up, except this time from the detractors of his story: Well, he was demented and didn't know what he was signing.

Since "He has dementia" is used to discredit the issues or the person, I think we need more solid evidence other than just someone saying, "Well, he had dementia." I'm not asking for a doctor's certificate, but I don't think a statement on some blog or an off-the-cuff statement in a book cuts it either. It's a pretty strong claim. Of course, neither one of these guys is around to defend themselves, which is why I think we ought to be careful in utilizing it. Note that the claim is used on both sides of the arguments here. In Corso's case it is used to say he is telling the truth; in Haut's case it is used to say he was not. I'm not taking a position here on one side or another, just questioning the use of the argument in the first place.

Just to help me out, seems like money keeps coming up, and that must be a bad thing for some.
That some might need it makes them easy not to believe?
Like going to work just for money...money paid for legal help, or "experts", priest at the wedding....even those behind ATS might need the cash, and goes on an on. Colleges must push degrees not to make more money....No doubt all must not be believed, if having silly costs of living and bills to pay. Especially old men who didn't sock money away, or blew it like young don't, and talk of UFO's.
To tell the truth, payday must not exist? So who all get paid....

Paul Kimball doesn't seem to believe Haut based on the issues with Kaufman and Dennis. That's fine, but he seems to take that belief and then read into everything being a conspiracy by Haut, his family, or the authors of Witness to Roswell. This is just like Warren's earlier statement on UFO Updates. They don't believe the affidavit so therefore they come up with theories. We're back to needing some proof that this affidavit is a farce.

Some think Haut's affidavit smells a little fishy, then you need to go fishing and not talk about the smell. The people that thought the "weather balloon" story was fishy...went fishing and caught some liars. The people that think the "Mogul balloon" is fishy are fishing now and starting to reel in more liars.

As far as these guys selling a book around the 60th Roswell anniversary...big deal. That's just smart business. You don't sell Valentine's Day cards in September. This isn't a book about Haut, it's a book about a lot of other witnesses...Haut is one small chapter in the book.

UPDATE: 2002 WALTER HAUT AFFADAVIT

Ok here's what we have been waiting to read. I am posting the Walter Haut 2002 affadavit for your review, analysis, and opinions. The full article is contained here on ATS, and can be validated HERE.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE: December 26, 2002
WITNESS: Chris Xxxxxx
NOTARY: Beverlee Morgan
(1) My name is Walter G. Haut
(2) I was born on June 2, 1922
(3) My address is 1405 W. 7th Street, Roswell, NM 88203
(4) I am retired.
(5) In July, 1947, I was stationed at the Roswell Army Air Base in Roswell, New Mexico, serving as the base Public Information Officer. I had spent the 4th of July weekend (Saturday, the 5th, and Sunday, the 6th) at my private residence about 10 miles north of the base, which was located south of town.
(6) I was aware that someone had reported the remains of a downed vehicle by midmorning after my return to duty at the base on Monday, July 7. I was aware that Major Jesse A. Marcel, head of intelligence, was sent by the base commander, Col. William Blanchard, to investigate.
(7) By late in the afternoon that same day, I would learn that additional civilian reports came in regarding a second site just north of Roswell. I would spend the better part of the day attending to my regular duties hearing little if anything more.
(8) On Tuesday morning, July 8, I would attend the regularly scheduled staff meeting at 7:30 a.m. Besides Blanchard, Marcel; CIC [Counterintelligence Corp] Capt. Sheridan Cavitt; Col. James I. Hopkins, the operations officer; Lt. Col. Ulysses S. Nero, the supply officer; and from Carswell AAF in Fort Worth, Texas, Blanchard's boss, Brig. Gen. Roger Ramey and his chief of staff, Col. Thomas J. Dubose were also in attendance. The main topic of discussion was reported by Marcel and Cavitt regarding an extensive debris field in Lincoln County approx. 75 miles NW of Roswell. A preliminary briefing was provided by Blanchard about the second site approx. 40 miles north of town. Samples of wreckage were passed around the table. It was unlike any material I had or have ever seen in my life. Pieces which resembled metal foil, paper thin yet extremely strong, and pieces with unusual markings along their length were handled from man to man, each voicing their opinion. No one was able to identify the crash debris.
(9) One of the main concerns discussed at the meeting was whether we should go public or not with the discovery. Gen. Ramey proposed a plan, which I believe originated from his bosses at the Pentagon. Attention needed to be diverted from the more important site north of town by acknowledging the other location. Too many civilians were already involved and the press already was informed. I was not completely informed how this would be accomplished.

(10) At approximately 9:30 a.m. Col. Blanchard phoned my office and dictated the press release of having in our possession a flying disc, coming from a ranch northwest of Roswell, and Marcel flying the material to higher headquarters. I was to deliver the news release to radio stations KGFL and KSWS, and newspapers the Daily Record and the Morning Dispatch.
(11) By the time the news release hit the wire services, my office was inundated with phone calls from around the world. Messages stacked up on my desk, and rather than deal with the media concern, Col Blanchard suggested that I go home and "hide out."
(12) Before leaving the base, Col. Blanchard took me personally to Building 84 [AKA Hangar P-3], a B-29 hangar located on the east side of the tarmac. Upon first approaching the building, I observed that it was under heavy guard both outside and inside. Once inside, I was permitted from a safe distance to first observe the object just recovered north of town. It was approx. 12 to 15 feet in length, not quite as wide, about 6 feet high, and more of an egg shape. Lighting was poor, but its surface did appear metallic. No windows, portholes, wings, tail section, or landing gear were visible.
(13) Also from a distance, I was able to see a couple of bodies under a canvas tarpaulin. Only the heads extended beyond the covering, and I was not able to make out any features. The heads did appear larger than normal and the contour of the canvas suggested the size of a 10 year old child. At a later date in Blanchard's office, he would extend his arm about 4 feet above the floor to indicate the height.
(14) I was informed of a temporary morgue set up to accommodate the recovered bodies.
(15) I was informed that the wreckage was not "hot" (radioactive).
(16) Upon his return from Fort Worth, Major Marcel described to me taking pieces of the wreckage to Gen. Ramey's office and after returning from a map room, finding the remains of a weather balloon and radar kite substituted while he was out of the room. Marcel was very upset over this situation. We would not discuss it again.
(17) I would be allowed to make at least one visit to one of the recovery sites during the military cleanup. I would return to the base with some of the wreckage which I would display in my office.
(18) I was aware two separate teams would return to each site months later for periodic searches for any remaining evidence.
(19) I am convinced that what I personally observed was some type of craft and its crew from outer space.
(20) I have not been paid nor given anything of value to make this statement, and it is the truth to the best of my recollection.
Signed: Walter G. Haut
December 26, 2002
Signature witnessed by:
Chris Xxxxxxx
[Source: Tom Carey & Donald Schmitt, Witness to Roswell, 2007]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please let me know what all of you think.

Originally posted by infinite8
UPDATE: 2002 WALTER HAUT AFFADAVIT[Source: Tom Carey & Donald Schmitt, Witness to Roswell, 2007]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please let me know what all of you think.

I come on here to ask wehere to find something, and you have already posted what i wanted to find, kudos to you.

My question concerning the 2002 affadavit is WHY is the full witness name withheld from the document? Is it on the original? Shouldn't this witness have to verify and validate this document?