The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Thursday, December 06, 2012

Anthony Bragalia touts a recording about Roswell bodies

walter-haut.jpg

Anthony Bragalia, at his blog, presented a recording of Walter Haut -- the (in)famous instigator of the Roswell Press Release -- describing the bodies allegedly found at the Roswell/Corona crash of 1947.

Unfortunately, a copyright challenge by Dennis Balthaser forced the posting to be deleted but we'll leave this note and the comments about Mr. Bragalia's work intact, as they are revelatory in themselves.

RR

65 Comments:

  • Words fail me. Almost.

    Early in Kevin Randle's latest blog about the Decline and Fall of the FOIA he uses the word "crapola".

    That is the same word I would use to describe AJB's latest piece on Walter Haut.

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • Hi CDA-

    Wondering where you've been...And now I find out. Still here. Still making juvenile comments.

    If all you can do is offer nothing more than the word "crap" and all you can do is defame Haut, why bother?

    You provide no insight and you revert to name-calling.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • Greetings,

    Remember too (strangely not mentionned Tony's new entry) Walter Haut became President of the Second Roswell Museum in 1992, and created the Museum with the "famous" Glenn Dennis.

    I mean that (for me at least) any recorded "sensationnalist" interview you found AFTER this business involment * sounds "suspect" and "red flag" in my mind.

    * You can have an idea of the number of Dollars generated by the Museum here : http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/11159

    Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • In the face of a tepid, late hour attempt to revive a fatefully fractured Humpty Dumpty who once sat wobbling on the wall of Roswell, I could speak into a microphone and soberly announce that I saw bodies that resembled hamsters. It's like a worn out magic act consigned to the boondocks circuit..a slipshod and tattered shtick.

    The point being there is no point at this point with the exception of the same old, old inference and suggestion that float randomly like last year's dandelion wisps across an empty field.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • Haut's statements could be "crap" or they could be true. How do we tell? One way (not the only way) is to determine whether anything is to be gained by a lie that comes out after you die. What, presumably, does Haut (or his family) gain from such an after-death admission? I realize that some lying is pathological...but there is usually a long document trail for that. Is there anything in Haut's history (other than this UFO business)which indicates that he was pathological?

    By Blogger Dominick, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • Dominick:

    Haut could have come to believe the myth, that was built over the years.

    It's a psychological possibility.

    However, he also may have been telling the truth, not just the truth as he knew it, in his mind.

    Those who discount the Roswell event, no matter what was involved, will not accept the possibility that there were bodies found.

    There are new finds that seem to indicate that Haut wasn't delusional in his final moments.

    And no one tells a deliberate lie on their death bed -- unless they are pathologically demented.

    Haut wasn't.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • Greetings Tony, Rich, et al,

    Oh my! Where to begin?!

    Actually, since this has all been hashed and rehashed years ago, I'll begin by repeating what I said then:

    Re Walter: I have the highest regard for him, and believe him to have been a person of good character, and I applaud his service during the war and all of his life's achievements thereafter, including of course being one of the co-founders of "The Roswell Museum."

    That said, probably the most significant matter of fact in reference to what Tony has "labeled" a taped confession (aside from that being an erroneous description) is that the interview that Dennis & Wendy conducted with Walter was "VIDEO taped" (in November 15, 2000) and performed under the auspice of “Oral History” about “Walter’s life” (not just Roswell).

    I was one of the researchers to get a full, unedited copy of the interview after Walter's passing and it was not at all what I anticipated, nor is it anything akin to what Tony describes herein–quite the opposite in fact.

    To state the obvious, the merits of a "video" interview far surpass that of just audio alone, and for anyone to properly interpret it, or offer an informed opinion they need to watch it in its entirety; for research purposes—absorbing it several times while taking notes is prudent (as I did ).

    To be clear and to put things in their proper context, Walter Haut for over 50 years (although endorsing the ETH for the Roswell Incident and repeatedly describing his part in the events, i.e., being the base PIO and writing the now famous press release and disseminating it to the civilian news organizations in Roswell) denied ever seeing bodies, wreckage etc., or being more involved then he was in his capacity as base PIO. In 1993 “he” wrote and signed an affidavit affirming said facts.

    In the “2000 video interview” rather then being a confession or smoking gun as suggested here, for me in the most positive light it confused the issues and in the worst case scenario it affirmed what Walter had said all along as “HE SAID 4 TIMES THAT HE IDN”T SEE ANYTHING in the very same session!”

    Moreover, during the interview in response to direct questions, he couldn’t remember where he did his basic training; he couldn’t remember where he was stationed after the war; he couldn’t remember certain words; he often repeated himself, as well as contradicted himself—one time within a few sentences and didn’t seem to be cognizant of it. I later had my wife watch the interview with me (without any advanced input from me); at the end, we both felt that we might be watching the early onset of either Alzheimer's and or some form of dementia.

    In 2003 Walter appeared on the Larry King Show; again, he 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."

    In 2007 Schmitt & Carey’s book was released with what was exalted (like now) as smoking evidence and or a death bed confession in the form of another affidavit; in reading it . . . this clear, concise, meticulously written document, inclusive of precise dates and times etc., it gave me great pause (to be polite), as the man that I saw in the video, (two years prior) didn’t seem capable of crafting such an elucidation. Quite frankly, I was dumbfounded!

    I was certainly curious to know just how the affidavit was prepared; my prurience was satisfied with Don Schmitt’s admission that “Walter did not write the affidavit–he (Schmitt) did.”

    —continued below

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • –continued from above–

    I don’t mean to be rude; however, none of what is presented in the article is new; this was beat to death 5 years ago, and quite frankly as evidence is worthless:

    • By text book definition, Walter had dementia of some sort, whether from old-age or otherwise.

    • We have two (or more) conflicting affidavits, one Walter wrote himself and one Schmitt wrote.

    • We have a “video-taped interviewed” where Walter seemed confused, very forgetful and contradictory; again he repeatedly said (4 times he didn’t see anything).

    At the end of the day, for one to assess the Haut debacle properly, studying the video in its entirety (along with everything else) is essential; however, barring that pay heed to the a fore mentioned facts weigh it accordingly.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • Thanks, Frank, for the extensive clarification.

    Tony may want to respond. I hope he does.

    That Haut may have imagined what he was stating as actual events is as you indicate -- a product of dementia.

    But even with dementia, some remembrances are real; they are muddled, certainly, but sometimes are (distorted) memories of things that actually occurred.

    Neurologically, Haut was flawed as you cite.

    And the involvement with Roswell became his own mythology.

    But behind every mythology lies a truth, as Joseph Campbell so clearly elucidated.

    But the caveat is what you present:
    Haut may have been in the early (or even later) stages of Alzheimer's decease or senility and/or dementia so one needs to take his ramblings with a grain of salt.

    That said, Tony Bragalia is privy to information and materials (new!) that provides substance to Haut's alleged ravings.

    It's unfortunate that these new discoveries are not ready to be disclosed, which would help to understand why Tony gives credence to Haut's statements, within dementia or not.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • Frank-

    Your "recollection" of this interview is at extreme variance with Wendy Connors- the one who actually sat with Walter Haut. Wendy indicates coherency. This forum is not the place to tackle the very large issue that is Walt Haut. But yes, Walt certainly did say different things to different people. Those who were closest to him knew the truth very early on however.

    If there is a video, it is now simply been converted to an MP3 audio because Wendy's archivist (though he is still working through her material) only indicates an audio version. I would very much like to see this video- can you produce it and do you have it to share?

    The Haut issue is complex, as is the Glenn Dennis story. It is not black and white.

    And you are wrong that this is not new (for most people.) This audio has never been on the internet before to my knowledge. Ever. Most all people do not know that this interview ever even occurred.

    Frank, your "insider" point-of-view belittles those who do not have one. Most everyone I know was entirely unaware of the 1999 Haut conversation with Wendy- save for the few faux 'intelligentsia' on UFO Updates! Hardly a re-hash!

    And the added information obtained by my fellow Roswell researchers Tom Carey, Don Schmitt and Kevin Randle about others who corroborate Walter's true knowledge about the event related to them very early on you entirely ignore. Further, what they related corroborates much of the later affidavit later signed by Walt.

    You know that I think a lot of you, but on this one we most assuredly disagree. Walt knew the entire truth and held it to the end, like so very many others.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • Hi Tony,

    You wrote:

    Your "recollection" of this interview is at extreme variance with Wendy Connors- the one who actually sat with Walter Haut. Wendy indicates coherency.

    Fortunately, I don't have to rely on "my memory"–as I have a copy of the video–which I received from good friend and colleague Dennis Balthaser (who co-owns the copyright).

    I've known Wendy for years; she is a friend; however, the video speaks for itself.

    You wrote:

    If there is a video, it is now simply been converted to an MP3 audio because Wendy's archivist (though he is still working through her material) only indicates an audio version. I would very much like to see this video- can you produce it and do you have it to share?

    Tony, there is no "if" re the video, and no offense, but had you done your homework, you'd know this as it's certainly no secret.

    I applaud Wendy for donating her work to Rod Dyke, although I wouldn't call him "her" archivist. He is a longtime, seasoned Ufologist in his own right.

    The video was copyrighted by Dennis & Wendy, and you'd have to ask them to see it.

    You wrote:

    The Haut issue is complex, as is the Glenn Dennis story. It is not black and white.

    No offense Tony, but that's not how you presented it in your article–you made specific proclamations.

    You wrote:

    And you are wrong that this is not new (for most people.) This audio has never been on the internet before to my knowledge. Ever. Most all people do not know that this interview ever even occurred.

    I never said anything about the "audio" or more importantly the "video" being on the internet Tony. Moreover I would argue that most people do know about the interview, (or at least those who keep up on such matters) specifically readers of this blog as Rich published a blurb on it in July of '07.

    You wrote:

    Frank, your "insider" point-of-view belittles those who do not have one. Most everyone I know was entirely unaware of the 1999 Haut conversation with Wendy- save for the few faux 'intelligentsia' on UFO Updates! Hardly a re-hash!

    As I stated before and I will state again, I mean no offense; however, one only needs to Google "Walter Halt" to find out about the interview; it's mentioned in the results of the very first link (and third at Paul Kimball's site) and so on . . ..

    You wrote:

    And the added information obtained by my fellow Roswell researchers Tom Carey, Don Schmitt and Kevin Randle about others who corroborate Walter's true knowledge about the event related to them very early on you entirely ignore. Further, what they related corroborates much of the later affidavit later signed by Walt.

    Didn't ignore it Tony, was just in a hurry. What we have at it's core–strictly from evidentiary analysis is "conflicting anecdotes" and the discrepancies come from the source himself–and as stated above, as evidence it's worthless (strictly speaking).

    You wrote:

    You know that I think a lot of you, but on this one we most assuredly disagree. Walt knew the entire truth and held it to the end, like so very many others.

    The feeling is mutual Tony; however, as I stated above, in order to properly assess the interview one needs to "see" it in its entirety and in context.

    Here's a quote from one of Dennis' articles:

    "We also know that the oral history videotape of Walter Haut done on November 15, 2000 and copyrighted by Wendy Connors and myself shows a man that couldn’t remember where he took basic training, names, dates, etc., while the 2002 affidavit is very detailed and precise with information Haut could accurately remember 2 years after he was video taped. . . .leaving me with the impression of not knowing if he was still trying to cover-up what he knew during our video taping, or actually couldn’t remember."

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Friday, December 07, 2012  

  • Hi Frank-

    I will request of her archivist the video. I am rather stunned that he did not provide to me this (if he has it) as he understands what my objective is.

    And I am well aware of the inherent difficulties with Walt's testimony. But we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater.

    I am glad that we agree that this is the first time (on the Net) that the recording has been made available to the general public. Because it is.

    Now, on Walt:

    Walt’s “last testimony” was more in keeping with what he told select people many years prior…

    As part of the Roswell team's research efforts, I have called a few folks that knew Walt who corroborate that even in the 1950s Walt spoke of the event as “more” than he had originally reported. More on this will be forthcoming at some point when our latest research is released.

    And Richard Harris, Base Finance Officer related to Kevin Randle that Walt asked him if he wanted to see the body that was stored in the hangar.

    And Walt’s PI assistant Lloyd E. Nelson related his viewing the strange debris material Walt had back in 1947….

    And Robert Shirkey told his son before he died that Walt knew more, including about bodies.

    And Carol Sysksa (who worked at the Museum) has stated that she overheard Walt discussing the fact it really was ET –and that he saw it- in a private conversation he had with an individual visiting the Museum.

    And Fred Wilcox (a civilian employee at RAAF in 1948) related that in 1955 Walt spoke of a body recovered to a mutual female friend….

    And Pete Haut, Walt's wife, related that she knew that Walt was “visited” over the years of AF personnel and received many disturbing phone calls from those who were connected to military…

    And the found Christmas card from CIC’s Milton Knight to Walt referencing the bodies too…hard to discount, it is physical evidence.

    We have to view Walt’s witnessing in the above context….

    And if you are correct that Walt appeared to be suffering from the beginnings of dementia- does this automatically discount his testimony? Surely he did not suffer in far earlier years of such mental decline when he reported to a select few is real knowledge about Roswell. Can those who suffer mentally due to age still say true things? Can the still relate what happened to them in the past? Do we dismiss everything in its entirety because of mental decline? Is everything that they say when in this condition not to be believed because of the condition? Is anything that they ever say to anyone ever to be believed? These are not easy questions to answer, of course….

    Had Walter never given any prior hints whatsoever that he knew more, I would say that the potential dementia meant something…but he did give prior hints.

    Re Dennis Balthaser: He, for some odd reason, disparages me often. I suspect / predict that we will here from him soon.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, December 08, 2012  

  • At least we now know Haut was a liar. Because if all the above were true then his affidavit of May 1993, which ends with the phrase "...and it is the truth to the best of my recollection", was plainly false.

    Or is it simply that his, er, "recollection" in 1993 was faulty?

    Another thing bothers me a little:
    If Haut knew about the bodies and ET craft, as a serving AF officer he was surely sworn to secrecy, like everyone else. So he ought not to have divulged any such secrets, or even hinted at them, to people like the base finance officer, various others (including civilians), or in fact anyone at all. Yet Haut did so.

    Not exactly a man to be trusted with military secrets, was he?

    A final question: Is this the kind of evidence the 'dream team' is going to publish in due course?

    By Blogger cda, at Saturday, December 08, 2012  

  • Mornin’ Tony,

    You wrote:

    I will request of her archivist the video. I am rather stunned that he did not provide to me this (if he has it) as he understands what my objective is.

    Perhaps Wendy culled pertinent parts of the interview from the video. I’m sure RD would have forwarded the video if he had it (or is aware of what it is).

    It would have been prudent (and diligent) to contact Dennis (and still is) not only for his thoughts on the matter, but in regard to the video.

    You wrote:

    And I am well aware of the inherent difficulties with Walt's testimony. But we cannot throw the baby out with the bathwater. .

    Tony, I’m the last person to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”; my problem is how the Walter Haut minutiae is presented.

    When the (last) Haut affidavit came to light in ’07 it was framed much the same way you have presented in your article, i.e., a “confession from the grave” that it was smoking-gun evidence, etc. Moreover, if you read the preceding paragraphs introducing the affidavit in Witness To Roswell the only thing missing is a “drum roll!” In that preface it was also stated that the affidavit was UNEDITED.

    Having had the benefit of viewing the Connors/Balthaser interview with Walter, I had great reservations when the affidavit came to light; back then I wrote:

    The severity of his “memory problems” has been contentious; however, “for those who have watched the interview,” most (if not all) agree it was evident to some extent.

    That said, when I read the affidavit—this clear, concise, meticulously written document, inclusive of precise dates and times etc., it gave me great pause (to be polite), as the man that I saw in the video, (two years prior) didn’t seem capable of crafting such an elucidation.

    I was certainly curious to know just how the affidavit was prepared . . ..


    Later Schmitt would admit:

    “It was 3 years before Walter died. And he actually trickled information to us . . .‘it [the affidavit] was prepared, it was based on things that Walter told us in confidence for a number of years.’"

    So, come to find out—the doc was created wholesale (“pieced together” and “prepared” over a “number of years”) and not penned by Walter (yet signed by him)—this in stark contrast to what the reader was lead to believe in the book!

    Then we have your current article which is presented in much the same way along with making “absolute proclamations,” e.g., "Walter’s Truth Finally Revealed" & "This shows that Walter Haut was not in any way 'coached' about his 2002 affidavit. . ." or "It shows that he was of sound mind and that he offered the final secret of the found bodies willingly . . .."

    This simply isn’t accurate and in fairness to you I see it as jumping the gun without possessing all the facts.

    You wrote:

    I am glad that we agree that this is the first time (on the Net) that the recording has been made available to the general public. Because it is

    I know the authors haven’t published the video interview; Walter’s family has several copies and to the best of my knowledge they haven’t published it either.

    You wrote:

    And if you are correct that Walt appeared to be suffering from the beginnings of dementia- does this automatically discount his testimony?

    No it doesn’t. What “discounts his testimony” is two completely opposite positions, both in written and oral statements. (Again, speaking “strictly” from a evidentiary point of view).

    As to the rest of your questions—they are valid; however, by their very nature it illustrates the dilemma that is extant with the Haut issue—which is in stark contrast to the position you take in the article.

    —continued below

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Saturday, December 08, 2012  

  • —continued from above

    You wrote:

    Re Dennis Balthaser: He, for some odd reason, disparages me often. I suspect / predict that we will here from him soon.

    I think he just disagrees with you as I sometimes do. I called him yesterday to ensure I was clear on some of my talking points before posting them. I’m certain he too will have some points to make.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Saturday, December 08, 2012  

  • I knew all the above, of course.

    But since Tony frequently puts one of his stupid misleading headlines on some old idiotic story, I hardly thought it might be worth the time to comment upon it.

    That this execrable story also involves at least one other terrible researcher (and fellow deluded "dream team" member) shows the state of the field.

    If Frank Warren and Dennis Balthaser are correcting your UFO fantasy, you can be sure that you have stepped out into the ether!

    What a laughable load of crap!

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Saturday, December 08, 2012  

  • Lance-

    You use the same word as CDA- crap. You have been, like CDA, reduced to use of juvenile language. People do this when they cannot offer specific arguments or cogent comments.

    You disparage the story by ignoring it. You fail utterly to comment on those who have come forward to say that Walt had spoken privately many decades ago to precisely what he attested to, not once, but twice.

    Frank and I can agree to disagree and remain civil. You are apparently unable to do so.

    The fact is that the very person who issued the release that it was a weather balloon decades later corroborated explained that was not true, just as Jesse Marcel did. You simply cannot get around the fact the principle players in the Roswell saga later "came clean" and corroborate one another.

    And again, Walter's later age-related mental status does not mean he was wholly incapable of relating the truth about Roswell.

    Professor- link does work. Please try again.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Saturday, December 08, 2012  

  • Frank Warren wrote : "
    “It was 3 years before Walter died. And he actually trickled information to us . . .‘it [the affidavit] was prepared, it was based on things that Walter told us in confidence for a number of years.’"

    Greetings,

    It is relativaly "well" known too. Thank you so much to recall it here.

    It is imho one among several the points separating "agnostic" researchers/investigators and "story/mythmakers" who are caracterizing this "Urban Legend/Folklore"; Unfortunatly, because the thing was seducting, and I would be "the first" to be enjoyed by such a real story. But no, that's ufology.

    The points you presented above underligne imho why (among several more points) the Roswell investigation is very suspect and bad tainted, as it have a "non serious aura" :if the researchers writes (to be short) themselves the affidavit of the witnesses, where are we going seriously???

    If too, at least two the "main" witnesses are founding "Museum" and are "surfing" on the Roswell myth to make money too, do you have an idea how it impacts the credibility of the so called ET-crash story. Any "mainstream" area will found it suspect. And so on, the list would be long.

    And it is not the only episode regarding the strange behavior of the investigator(?) in question. Remember too the episode in mid90's when Misters Randle and Schmitt "collapsed"...

    In essence, despite people wrote or will write bestsellers surfing on the myth, it will become best-sellers / internet buzz, but imho nothing serious for "academics" (fortunatly).

    sorry but frankly.

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Sunday, December 09, 2012  

  • The wobbling axis on which this rusting tale relies is the nebulous certainty that it would have been strategically advantageous to anyone to withhold the bragging rights to a find of this nature. Or, to announce it and then withdraw it. Or, to hold onto this ruse for nearly going on a century, long after the Cold War. NASA would have an orgasm for the underwriting of a demonstrable purpose for funding more noodling around in outer space. Even the Air Farce is lost in circles to explain away a half century after the fact that someone jumped the gun regarding the nature of the material, but to their credit ( at the time) they announced the screw up. One considers who screwed up and who promoted a CYA story. A good reason for this is that no one can disprove what does not exist, especially if they have the cover of institutional secrecy. The secondary benefit is a claim to fame and all that comes with it. Of course the AF is going to say no such thing happened which just strengthens their confabulations. Whether they or anyone else claims it was rubber galoshes or hamsters matters not. Common sense tells us this whole wasted effort killed the nascent efforts to have science look at the phenomenon even with a ten foot pole. Similarly, there is a stubborn reluctance to admit this charade of what passes for evidence is a fools errand, just as the knuckleheads who began this navel gazing made plenty of dough by immortalizing a myth. How anyone can waste more time on this is beyond me. Time has passed by this pouring of the empty into the void a long, long time ago.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, December 09, 2012  

  • Frank, CDA, Gilles, Lance:

    Listen up to Wendy herself!!!

    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.

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Sunday, December 09, 2012  

  • Just when you think this whole dead piece of horse flesh is a bag of bone we have remarkable contradictory commentary.
    "He embellished nothing.."
    "...it does not mean Walter Haut was senile or suffering from dementia. This is absolute intellectual nonsense
    and rubbish..."
    Yet further on..in this endless miasma of vivid inconstancies, the claim in this case centers around a legal affidavit signed by him that is then said to have "embellishments"..."errors" in the same statement. It begs the logical question: Whose embellishments and whose errors is this referring to, if not Haut ??
    Then "the overall truth was revealed", but then he intentionally left out "some things that are not in the oral history or affidavit. Things he didn't want to
    go on record." If this were a homicide or a crime against the truth, history or whatever and a witness was withholding information
    he felt was essential ..I would hardly stretch this to say "A man of integrity gives an overall confirmation (of what?)that researchers and the general public wanted to know from history."
    Whose history?
    "Hardly an non-credible witness by any stretch of the imagination."
    Inference and suggestion combined with yes,..,imagination stretched to it's limits when all this vague and contradictory story line is poised around what are unsubstantiated allegations.
    A lot of parsed double talk in a shell game in a tennis match played with a dead ball. Fascinating stuff
    if you get tired of watching paint dry. Signing off..

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, December 09, 2012  

  • BTW..I had this masochistic urge to ask what was left out of the oral history and affidavit claimed to be in the proprietary possession of this person that is being withheld and being "worked" on? As tantalising as a come on..showing a bit of leg here..I am stunned into "deja vu all over again". Is this another half baked book, a film script as was pushed by Dolan, or part of a conspiracy to make everything murkier by suggestive innuendo? All of these so called witnesses talked their collective assess off. What are these concealed facts that places this person into hyperbole..and frankly..all this tripe is such juvenile rubbish, I must go to bed now and dream up something more creative than this leftover third rate goulash from "experts" "researchers" ..

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Sunday, December 09, 2012  

  • Bruce-

    Do you not see a pattern of obfuscation of truth from both sides?

    But somewhere lies the truth- and you seemingly denigrate my sincere efforts at arriving there.

    The Air Force offered many explanations:

    A flying disc, a weather balloon, a secret Mogul balloon, bodies as dummy drops, etc.

    Walter, as a Lieutenant officer, was made to go along...

    Later in life, though the details are somewhat muddled, he confessed the truth as he remembered it. The ET truth.

    Now, we can argue endlessly if he was as sharp as he once was when he made his confession. But it matters not. He told others privately decades before.

    You see, none of you can escape the fact, though you wish to, that the very man who issued the Press Release read round the world that is was a disc and then related it was just a balloon, in the winter of his life reverted to his original and true story- it was a flying disc. And it was not ours.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Someone has explained my position better than I have. From a comment on another site about this piece from someone named "Altria"

    "This is very compelling as i am of the position that deathbed statements or in this case statements to be released after death should be considered truthful.This kind of disclosure is by no means unusual as these kind of taped statements have occurred in the past from whistle blowers to be released after death.The case of William Pawelec comes to mind,in his case the interview was to be released 3 years after his death,so for me the manner of the disclosure would be what one would expect in the case of national security issues.
    I suspect a secret this big with the implications would truly weigh heavily on ones moral compass.That and the sense of duty in conflict would, i suspect wear even the best of us down,the solution seems to me to a fair and reasonable way to at least have some sort of peace in his last days.Now what can be said is Mr.Haut believed his statements,that don't make them true of course, as i am sure this interview will be dissected and all sorts of skeptic reasons will come forth,but for me i think the man needed to clear his conscience,he believed everything thing he said,which most likely is true,at least that's how i see it."

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Dear Tony,

    You wrote "The Air Force offered many explanations:A flying disc, a weather balloon, a secret Mogul balloon, bodies as dummy drops, etc."

    Yes and not (it have been already discussed by skeptics in the past..). See Myth15 in Tim site : http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Rosmyths.htm

    First and again, "we" must recontextualize the terms disc and flying saucers with the end of june/start of july meanings.

    We have, skeptics, done/attempted these "contextualization" several times in Kevin's blog, and are more or less agreing for a general picture/scenario why the protagonists acted as they did legitimatly (on a flying disc/saucer CONTEXTUALIZED). I will not restart here.

    Same for "why" a weather balloon explanation was done the day after the press release, as probably why the press release. No need of E.T. variable in our "scenario" (parsimony principle is one our friend^^).

    Just few words concerning the dummies. I read the second Report probably not like you (?), as I have the barreer of the language I admit.

    If you read the second USAF report 'case closed' the dummies are evokated because (just few examples) :

    Ragsdale claims and quotes : "they were using dummies in these damned things."

    Anderson claims and quotes : "I thought they were plastic dolls".

    Because Kaufman "talks" that perhaps " anexperimental plane with dummies in it" was the source of the claims.

    USAF linked it to another claims (San Augustin folklore tales, to be short), for example the Maltais's one describing the "bodies'uniform" and how they were suited as "one piece and grey in color", or that it may have occured "around 1950".

    As taking into account several details including the military vehicules alleged to have taken place by those (in)famous witness. And so on.

    That's what "drived" LEGITIMALY the "investigation" here and on this dummies pist, in this second opus imho.

    So the report examined what could be consistent with those claims and caracteristics.

    In introduction, the USAF states : "that they discovered information that provided a rational explanation of alien bodies [b]associated[/b] with the Roswell incident and later [i]it appears that UFO proponents have failed to establish the accurate dates for these "alien observations (in some instance by more than a decade) and then erroneously linked them to the actual project Mogul debris recovery".

    They explain too that the claim of the bodies at the RAAF hospital were most likely a combination of two separate real incidents (from 1956/1959, read the report).

    It is a pity the "monkeys crashed tests" were not so much examined by USAF, because they happened before the dummies one (well, thats another story to explain maybe several other claims about alien bodies).

    In other words, it is not proposed that dummies explain the "1947" Roswell bodies, but that some "retrospective falsification processes" (linked different REAL events taking place in different times/periode as one - the Roswell crash -, to embelish them, etc. read ie: http://www.skepdic.com/retfalse.html
    ) have been "mixed" here (when not deliberatly hoaxing - will not evokate Ragsdale, Kaufmann, etc. debunked -).

    In other words, the document states/defend the thesis that project mogul was responsible for the 1947 events [b]and[/b] "LATER" real events have been probably agreged to this story.

    In fact, that the myth could be an agregation of several real prosaic/trivial events erroneously associated as one.

    At least, I understand (to be short) the second report as the thesis defended, as something like it (to share or not it).

    Regards

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Of course, this post about Tony Bragalia's blog post, elsewhere, brings out the Roswell believers and skeptics, in force, as is the case with any Roswell mention, here or anywhere.

    Gilles' desire to contextualize flying saucer, flying disk (or disc) in the 1947/48 time-frame is important.

    And we've touched on that previously here and elsewhere.

    But the Roswell "bodies" discussion has been underplayed pretty much, at this venue, at least.

    Mr. Bragalia deals with the topic out of his knowledge, yet to be disclosed, about Roswell body evidence.

    And yes, there is "evidence" -- evidence that is more than circumstantial.

    One hopes that the Roswell Dream Team will come forth soon with what it has, about Roswell bodies and disc-crash evidence.

    Roswell is akin to the Jesus myth, in that it grows with accretions such as Mr. Bragalia's post about Haut's death-bed statement(s).

    Roswell is mythical in essence, but myth, as we keep stating, has a core of truth at its base.

    One can't dismiss Roswell, out of hand, as a total fabrication.

    Something happened there, in 1947.

    What that was is, as Nick Redfern states, is yet to be discerned exactly.

    Trying to sweep Roswell under a debunker's rug or a skeptical carpet doesn't work -- won't work.

    The myth is too entrenched -- an unresolved mystery, muddled by the ineptness of early UFO researchers and the U.S. Army's handling of the incident, even if it turns out to be totally mundane.

    There is more there, and Mr. Bragalia, among a few others, is privy to information that "proves" their ET/body stance.

    They need to share that info, sooner than later, so we can all get some sleep.

    RR


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Yes. There is more than testimony. Somewhere out there. And we will get there. But then, with that kind of evidence even presented, what will the skeptics say?

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Of course, Anthony, they, like Doubting Thomas, in the New Testament, will want to get their hands on the "evidence" and rework it to their unbelieving, close-minded advantage.

    Some people don't want truth. They just want to keep lolling around, listening to old music and watching old movies that keep them from transcendental truths which might mess up their comfy life-styles.

    I like our resident skeptics but, lately, they have become obstinately close-minded, in reaction to such ET proselytizers as Rudiak and Friedman.

    Moderate UFO researchers get the same opprobrium that such guys as Rudiak deserve.

    There is no distinctive discernment by our skeptics, sadly -- everyone who speculates, no matter how reasonably, gets the same slaps in the face as those who should be slapped.

    Nuance is missing. Intellectual acumen also I'm sorry to say.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • The core theoretical concept of Roswell is based on the materialism of the evidence. It was claimed to be an alleged empirical event. You have the claims of an event without literally,any body of evidence. Not one shred, with the exception of this and other witness testimony. The witness testimony in many cases is flawed, a fact that even those who suspect an actual event have admitted as much.
    The statistical probability of a prosaic answer is high while the same probability to a extraterrestrial cause is extremely low and yet this theoretical possibility drove this probable myth. If the prosaic answer is found whether it is crash dummies, balloons, monkeys etc..it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual phenomenon. My issue is with the theology behind the context of the case that drives it. The ET truth? If that is not biased, then what is? It is in essence, an extremely vague conspiracy theory. And so, what do we gain if the "answer" is found? I suggest to you that it is a confirmation that decades have been wasted in a fool's errand, which has accomplished nothing with the exception of inflating, then deflating a mythological balloon.
    The ET truth as you put it is not a truth, it is a highly speculative theory based on contradictions that in turn is based on conspiracy theory that is statistically nearly impossible. It has nothing to do with actual research into the nature of the phenomenon. As a result of this circular self referential research, the eyes were taken off the ball..perhaps for good. Open mindedness to the point of the obfuscation of truth, as you put it, is a misdirection of attention in my book. This whole shebang is based on relativity of opinion yet it is supposed to be forensic. The core truth ( based on probability alone) is likely to be prosaic, not the miracle of the ET religion's theology. I would like to know the truth but it is a minuscule footnote to human behavior, not an answer beyond this sad forensic fact when all is said and done. No offense intended, but the whole thing smacks of drinking too much spiked Kool Aid to the point where inference and suggestion become the body of the ET Truth.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • RR:

    Are you saying that there are real bodies? You write that there is "evidence that is more than circumstantial". How do you know this?

    Yes of course we skeptics will demand to view these 'bodies' if they exist. But the plain truth is that they do NOT exist and never have. Am I being too much of a 'Mr Knowall'?

    65 years after the event I don't think so!

    AJB can promise all sorts of revelations. Wendy Connors can promise ditto. Her paragraph 5 is a useless piece of UFO 'more to come' rhetoric, and follows the well trodden path of such, i.e. of the kind "We know more but cannot reveal it now". Sure.

    Shades of Adamski, who often made such promises.

    If real hardware, bodies or documentation is produced skeptics and scientists can examine it and give their verdict.

    I am STILL waiting, and until then will side with Bruce, Lance and Gilles (as you know).

    What odds would you give that all such hard evidence will prove completely worthless to science?

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Part 1/2

    Rich wrote : "Roswell is mythical in essence, but myth, as we keep stating, has a core of truth at its base."

    Allow me a last couple of "last" words.
    Nobody (at least not me) claims the contrary than your sentence I quoted. We did?

    I authorize myself to remember to the readers of this blog the words of Charles A. Ziegler in the chapter one "Mythogenesis, historical development of the Roswell Narratives" in "UFO crash at Roswell : the Genesis of a Modern Myth". As few ones in the Chapter 2.

    Regarding your assersion I quoted, Rich :

    "What I do claim is that, without prejudging the factuality of the story, it can be treated and analyzed along lines that have become well established in cultural anthropology.
    Myth sometimes form around a core of events that are commonplace or other wise unremarkable, although the myth themselves may be fanciful in the extreme. Hence, in this chapter I begin my analysis by narrating the Roswell myth in its full-blown form and juxtaposing it with an account of some historically documented events that appear likely to have given birth to the myth. I then show how the account of these documented events evolved into the myth, a process of transfiguration that involved successive rettelings in which some of the historically recorded events were retained, some were distorted or repressed, and entirely new elements were inserted.

    In chapter 2, he continues and :

    [...] "show that the Roswell stories are similar to traditionnal folk narratives in term of transmission, structure, and central motif. In a second level of analysis, I speculate about the motives of the persons in creating the myth and draw parallels to previous studies of mythmaking. Finally, because myths are usually symbolic expressions of themes that are iportant in a given culture, a third level of the analysis focuses on the functions and meaning of the Roswell myth in the context of some generally accepted ideas and values of our modern society.

    [...] A myth is, among other things, a narrative thats deals with a transcendantal issue such as why and how the world and humankind came to be in their present form, the role of unearthly beings in human affairs, and the like; and it is a narrative that some people withing the society say they find credible. In other words, a myth necessarely has (or had, in the case of antique myths) a constituency of true believers, who, by virtue of a shared avowal of their belief, constitute a subculture. For the analyst, members of this subculture constitute a group of informants from whom the myth can be acquired. If the myth has reached maturity, it may be possible for the analyst to hear the complete myth recited by knowledgeable true believers or to read it in canonical form in their writings. On the other hand, a myth in the making, which by definition have not been canonized, will be more fragmented in recitals and in the writings of true believers, requiring some degree of collation by the analyst.

    End of part 1/2. Continue after :

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, December 10, 2012  


  • Part 2/2
    The Roswell myth falls in the latter category. It exists as a series of related propositions, explicit or implied, that are found throughout the subset of the UFO litterature that describes the Roswell Incident in terms of an extraterrestrial visitation.

    Later :

    [...] Such skeptics provide examples from these books to show that the authors, in structuring their narratives, omit data that is contrary to their argument, quote out of context, fabricate and/or use forged documents as evidence, make assertions without supporting evidence, and introduce information extraneous to their argument simply to sensationalize their text.

    The enlighted ethnologist saids too :
    [...} the skeptics maintain that the author of these books breack all the generally accepted rules of investigative reporting and historical research because they misquote witnesses, ignore testimony that contradicts their claims, accept the testimony of witnesses who are preconditionned by the medi and/or by the interviewers themselves, accept conflicting testimony of several witnesses on the same topic, accept internally contradictory testimony, cite etstimony from anonymous witnesses as the sole evidence for some of their assertions, accept testimony contradicted by physical evidence, and display an overreliance on the background of informanats as an indicator of thruthfulness."

    Of course, all the book must be read, and specialy Ziegler and Saler chapters, probably less known than Moore ones. Incontournables imho as we say in French for anyone seriously interrested by the Roswell narrative...

    Well, I stay tunned, cause you announced the DreamTeam will provide things that PROVE their ET body stance...
    Good times for photography and Christmas occupations, then ;)

    Cya,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • The stupidity of Bragalia and Wendy Connors defense against this silly story is sadly a reflection of the entire field.

    Note Connor's incredibly dumb "he embellished nothing" claim. How does she know this? Only through the fairy dust-covered lenses that true believers use to view their world. How many times have we heard about other Roswell fantasists as being men of integrity, etc. etc.

    It's like the snake-oil salesman's patter:

    I know it works, folks. It says so right on the bottle.

    Frank Warren gave clear and concise evidence as to why the testimony should be questioned by non-insane people. Bragalia and Connors ignore this.

    Lance



    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Christopher:

    I am not authorized to speak to the body "evidence" re: Roswell.

    But Anthony Bragalia and his DT colleagues may have discovered something substantial that pertains.

    I have always maintained that the Roswell/Corona disk crash is fraught with a mix of errant witness testimony and memory recall.

    But I have always felt that something significant -- more than an incident -- lies at the root of the developing story, the mythology if you will.

    Early ufological mavens botched the story with their inept scrutiny.

    And the likes of rabid ET believers like Rudiak exacerbate the early flaws.

    But Mr. Bragalia and his buddies are privy to some interesting things that may (could) clarify the Roswell event.

    I'm not quick to besmirch what they think they have.

    As Tony wrote (above), they'll provide their (new) discoveries as soon as they can, trying not to rush to judgement, which you, Lance, Gilles, and even I tend to do.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Hi Rich,

    My comments were only related to Bragalia's latest confection. He was one who released it with his trademark grade school bombasticy.

    It's not a rush to judgement to consider each piece of this stuff as it floats past.

    Lancer

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Lance...

    You're fine.

    When someone -- me included -- puts something out there, that someone is fair game for criticism and what they offer is grist for evaluation.

    Tony's output is open to scrutiny and barbs or encomiums.

    Mine too, of course.

    But its rash to scold Kevin Randle's Dream Team efforts before their denouement(s).

    Tony's posts, I believe, are preludes to what the Dream Team will proffer.

    Tony knows that I think his pronouncements are often bombastic.

    That's why we set him up with his own venue rather than have him use ours -- this blog.

    He can pontificate at will in his own backyard and, yes, he hypes material that some of us (you, CDA, Gilles, and I) think is loopy.

    But he doesn't do that without some material offering corroboration for what he's presenting.

    Tony is more rational than you are willing to allow.

    (Now, Rudiak, that's another matter.)

    So feel free to vent your spleen here about Tony's offerings.

    That's okay with me.

    I sometimes do the same, but privately out of my affection and respect for Tony and his research methods (which are solid as I see them).

    So have at it.

    Tony's a big boy, in your age bracket so you're not picking on a kid or a geezer.

    He can take the critiques, I'm sure.

    After all, the UFO arena is a venue for argumentation, jealousies, and petty bantering, isn't it?

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Greetings All,

    I was telling an associate of mine that I think I saw a “pig fly by” and it’s a fair bet “hell has frozen over!” He laughed and asked why, and I explained that there is commentary from Wendy Connors on one of Rich Reynolds blogs! Of course he didn’t understand what I was talking about, and I just said, “you had to be there!” (I’m guessing Rich is as surprised as I am).

    First, knowing Wendy’s health issues, I’m happy to know she’s well enough to participate in the dialogue in some fashion. Moreover, I have the utmost respect for Wendy and her work; however, in that same vain I respectfully disagree with some of her comments.

    I spent a couple of hours looking for the “Oral History Interview” with Walter (I put it in a safe place); after locating it, I watched an hour and a half (1 ½) of the “Roswell segment” (there was more, but as usual I am extremely busy) this morning. With that part of the interview fresh in my mind, I have to say, from my perspective—nothing has changed. That is to say, I stand behind my initial impression, thoughts and commentary from years ago.

    Walter not only had difficulty remembering things he himself addressed his failing memory (on camera) a number of times; at one point he stated:

    "You've got to appreciate the fact the older we get, I’m talking about myself, and yourself [talking to Wendy], your gonna get here to. The more difficult is to go back and recall things and feel confident that what you're saying is what happened "not" something that you heard recently or uh you read somewhere . . . it's a hard process to drop into a . . . uh void for a long time and then all of a sudden come out of it and to oh to a very simple uh here I go . . . it's getting harder and harder for me to recall thingsit's a . . . hell I'm 75 years of age.”

    Regardless of casualty, Walter not only exhibited memory issues, he talked about it on camera, and repeatedly said “I don’t remember” a number of times, and similar analogies on other occasions.

    It’s natural when people hear the word “dementia” to think of the worst case scenario, and to be clear: “forgetfulness” as we age, whether mild or severe is a form of “organic dementia.”

    Setting the “memory issue” aside for a moment . . . or for those of you who don’t wish to accept that was a factor, let’s go the other way; here are some of his comments (please note that these are snippets at various times in the conversation):

    Wendy Connors: Y-you yourself only saw one body?

    Walter Haut: I didn't see one . . . I just wrote a press release.

    [Talking about Jesse Marcel and any conversation about the craft]

    Walter Haut: Number one I didn't see it . . . number two it wasn't described to me . . . number three I did what the old man told to me to do. [Pauses then laughs, looks at Dennis and says] I don't think he believes me.

    Wendy: What ummm . . . I think this will be my final question . . . your impression of seeing . . . the disc of seeing at least one body . . . today now . . . here now . . . you have said that it was definitely not a weather balloon . . .

    Walter: I don't really know . . . I . . . [sigh] it hurts me to try and give any answers because I'm not certain of the whole thing . . .

    . . . number one because I don't have a lot of knowledge about the details . . . everybody thinks that I that I saw the . . . I didn't . . . uhh I put out a press release that Colonel Blanchard told me what he wanted in the press release . . . and I ran in it into town and gave it to the media, went home and ate lunch.


    -continued below

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • —continued from above

    [continuing commentary by Walter]
    I think that you've got to take into account one more factor . . . It's possible, and that's all I'm saying it's possible that this so-called uh flying saucer was uhh of our . . . USA uhh construction and it went awry somehow umm someone saw it something . . .

    Please bear in mind that these are just snippets of Walter's various replies; he also said “he did see bodies”; however, as I have stated in the past, as well as in the aftermath of Tony's piece–in order to assess the interview properly one must "view" it in its entirety.

    As you can see, anyone could have taken one of the a fore mentioned replies and used it in an article "in direct opposition" of Tony's position, and herein lies the crux of my argument, i.e., the contradictory statements by Walter all in the same session; the contradictory affidavits and of course the memory issues.

    If one chooses to believe his memory wasn't an concern, then fine–he said he didn't see anything (bodies or vehicle) on a number of occasions–you can't have it both ways.

    Others might say, or infer (and have) "you have to read between the lines!" That's fine too; however, that's a far stretch from painting the whole scenario as smoking gun evidence or a confession.

    Cheers,
    Frank

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • P.S. Tony (on the phone) pointed out that the Wendy's post (via Tony) was from the first go 'round (back in '07); I had presumed it was a recent e-mail, and overlooked that fact in my haste-FW

    By Blogger Frank Warren, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Many thanks to Frank Warren for taking the time to post the above.

    It appears that the Roswell zealots will keep after an old man until he gives them the answer they want.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Monday, December 10, 2012  

  • Thank you so much, Frank Warren, for the inputs above and your time.

    I suppose you will not be labelled as "close-minded" or "debunker", etc. as it is sometimes the case for some of us...

    The words of Charles Ziegler, I quoted above, are echoing suddenly in my mind (I'm the only one?):

    "The skeptics maintain that the authors of these books breack all the generally accepted rules of investigative reporting and historical research because they [...] accept the testimony of witnesses who are preconditionned by the medi and/or by the interviewers themselves, [...] accept internally contradictory testimony, [...]

    You magistraly illustrated this, imho. QED.

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • Gilles:

    You need to accept the epithet "debunker" or "skeptic" and the descriptive "close-minded" as badges of honor.

    Especially in the UFO arena.

    These are not words of disparagement or ridicule but rather are applied by me for those who comment here but who don't get their comments posted.

    I shan't name them but they know who they are, since their efforts to input in this place are ignored.

    You, Lance, CDA, and a few others approach the topic and postings, generally, with fervor but intellectual reserve.

    Looking for support from the esteemed Frank Warren isn't necessary.

    You fellows make qualified and valuable remarks on your own.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • Gilles, Lance and others-

    I spoke with Frank Warren directly on the phone last night.

    You will be very surprised to learn that Frank actually agrees with me that Walter Haut saw bodies and/or debris!!! He believes, as I do, that Frank knew far more than he openly admitted.

    He disagrees with me sharply however that the tape of Walter featured in this piece corroborates this.

    And you will be happy to learn, Lance, that Frank and I can 'agree to disagree' and remain civil, professional and cordial without name-calling or spewing vitriol. In fact, I rather like Frank...a good guy with a sincere commitment to finding truth for history.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • Ah OK, Rich. Pardon!

    It seems (at least for me and my level of English) that the term "debunker" have a strange meaning in the UFO microcosme.
    For ETH-proponents, it seems to mean somebody who is hyper-critic, criticazing at all costs, only in the goal to criticize (to be short).

    In French, we have the terme "démystificateur", which is the substantive for someone who is demystifying, "eye-opening". I suppose it is what was "debunker" in English in reality: Expose the falseness or hollowness of (a myth, idea, or belief). Wiki.

    In other words, it seems the word "debunker" have taken a sort of negative content in the mind of some ufologists, consciously or not, despite the terme have a positive meaning, for me.

    When I read it in ufological topics/discussions, I have the "reflex", it is this negative meaning that the interlocutor have in mind when using the term "debunker"...

    Dunno if I'm a debunker, but my modest experience shows me that UFOlogy offers rare counter-tons regarding several cases, doesn't take it into account, or repeat/present again cases/arguments which have been demonstrated as "fallacious".

    That's cool to have some skeptics participating in some UFO discussions, in order to "tickle" our critical thinking...

    Jason Colavito have had (in 2005) those words regarding the Ancient Aliens Theory:

    "Ancient astronaut theories provide one answer with no questions asked. There is nothing to discuss, no weighing of competing truths. There is only the one Truth: extraterrestrials. It is the secular version of fundamentalist religion..."

    If it a little "virulent", maybe (whatever...), but there is a good regard on AA (I know, you are not agreed and you have your own feeling regarding AA...), as colavito's remark could be adressed sometimes regarding the "classic" ufology...

    Sorry for the off-topic.

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • Gilles:

    I don't see you, Lance, or CDA as debunkers.

    I see you fellows as rational skeptics.

    If you, Lance, or CDA were anathema to me, your comments wouldn't appear at this blog.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • The Haut 'story' is an oddity indeed.

    We may assume that in 1994, when the USAF and the GAO launched their re-investigation, that Haut would have informed them of his great first-hand knowledge of the bodies and debris. After all, if the AF can interview Newton and Cavitt, why not Haut also, especially if he (as he later claimed) saw the bodies & debris first hand.

    And when the AF follow-up book in 1997 came out and dealt specifically with the question of bodies, again Haut should have been the first to inform them of their gross errors of omission. After all, Haut knew something the other surviving officers did not.

    But this never happened. Haut kept silent! And if Tony is right Haut had already told others, who had no right to know, about it in the 1950s & 60s!

    What a monumental shambles Roswell is. One of the few men who knew the truth from the beginning, but who was sworn to secrecy, tells a few friends (none of whom had any 'need to know') as early as the 50s, yet never mentions a word of it to official investigators trying to unravel the case in the 1990s!

    Poor old Walter. He has obviously been interviewed and re-interviewed so many times that he is utterly lost and confused on what really happened and what has been planted in his mind, over & over again, in the post-1979 years.

    But that is UFO 'investigation' for you. Yes Gilles, you are 100% correct.

    Yet this is supposed to be part of the 'dream team's new evidence.

    As I said earlier, words (almost) fail me!

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • CDA-

    This is not part of the 'team's' new evidence. It is a piece that I did through reviewing the totality of the Haut matter. So please do not spout your assumptions.

    And for you to presume what any particular person would or would not do, or who they would tell or not tell- is unfair. And psychological science instructs us that reactions to 'surprise material' vary widely from individual to individual. Some say nothing, some say some things, and some tell all they know.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • Frank's post shows clearly how these people work: they prime the witness for the answer they are looking for and then ask the same question over and over of their elderly witnesses until they get the answer they want.

    It's sad, if true, that Frank Warren might take the even more dubious hearsay and second-hand rumors about Haut and assign some level of truth to them.

    Lance

    By Blogger Lance, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • As I recall the mythology, Saint Walter of Roswell was 'the most trusted one' that advised Dr. Randle and Mr. Schmitt to contact a certain Roswellian, "Frank Kaufmann", whose word on the subject was totally vetted, right?

    ...yet I have found this:

    http://www.cufos.org/FrankKaufmannExposed.pdf

    WTF?

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • It was Haut who also told Friedman, Randle & Schmitt to contact a certain Glenn Dennis. Am I right? Dennis is the guy who then claimed he was warned by the military about being turned into 'dog food' if he talked too much.

    By Blogger cda, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • P.P.S. (sorry for the double post) after some query of "UFO researchers" I correspond with, I am told that at least Roswell Prime Researcher Schmitt has found the Roswell research of Saint Wendy of Snarc to be at least problematic...

    ..so... why does Dream Team assistant Tony Bragalia hold Saint Wendy up as an icon?

    ...don't the Dream Teamers ever compare notes?

    By Blogger Kurt Peters, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • Kurt, CDA-

    For the umpteenth time, this has nothing to do with the collective efforts of the "team"- it is my piece, done independently. And Don is entitled to his opinion on the details surrounding Walter's confession to him and earlier to Wendy.

    Relative to Glenn Dennis (still alive, but very ill, btw) and Walter, may I suggest you Google for my December 26, 2008 piece "The Roswell Undertaker's Secret" which goes into some detail about the the man. It is a complex story dealt with directly in that article, please find and read.

    Relative to Frank Kaufmann and Walter, Kaufmann inserted himself into history. He culled tidbits from others and wove a tale, making it his own. He was very convincing.

    Walter told Tom Carey when approached about Kaufmann and evidence of his tall tales that Walter said that he too was taken in by Frank. He was believable to Walt because Frank came across as very knowledgeable, as con men can.

    Walt did not know every single individual who was (or was who not) involved in the incident. And he never claimed to. How could he? The base employed thousands, folks.

    And Walt made it abundantly clear that he did not have the "whole story" of the crash relative to who did what and when, where the debris and bodies were taken (though he had speculation)and who ordered and orchestrated everything.

    And Kurt, sorry but I do not appreciate your snarly tongue. To call a dying woman "St. Wendy" is beyond distasteful.

    If you and CDA have become crotchety old men, do your name-calling elsewhere.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Tuesday, December 11, 2012  

  • Roswell stories will continue as a mythological Whack-A-Mole for as long as this culture remains due to the the efforts of the constituency and confederation and individual members of the Dream Team. Like any self fulfilling prophecy, these stories fulfill a wistfulness and a void that given enough time and energy, the rational mind can disclose anything. However the rationality of the mind is accompanied by other drives as Gilles so eloquently described. It has become the only game in town in terms of attempting to explain a complex phenomenon with a simple, understandable narrative filled with our participation as a species. What the participants fail to grasp, or would if they could step away is all of this is a metaphor worthy of the bard. When trying to make a metaphor, a causal series of facts, you have this Sisyphus effect. As Yogi Bera said "Deja Vu all over again." If the great efforts of these folks as misguided as I think they are were directed perhaps more in the manner of a Leslie Kean on the phenomenon rather than a single mythological story, perhaps some heads would be lifted out of the sand rather than obsessively driving them deeper into it as a compulsion.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • Some further commentary..This is truly a story worthy of reenactment as a ritual in the distant future as a reworking and updated version of The Passion Play which is popular at this time of year.
    ET comes to Earth to save mankind and is murdered crucified by the Pharisees of the AF, and the Commander washes his hands of any responsibility. Walter repents of his ways and becomes Paul.
    The disciples of the Dream Team attempt to resurrect what was lost, the saving of mankind. They await for the eternal return by worshiping the memory of a ritual murder that now has passed into myth. The spacemen gave their lives for the hope of a better world. We need some carols as background music. The scene closes with the backdrop of the universe expanding into infinity until the Earth becomes visible only as a speck among specks.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • Bruce-

    I believe your penchant for philosophizing has clouded your thinking.

    You see, there is no need to refer to metaphors or myth.

    That something did indeed crash is as real as a slap in the face is real. It is black and white. Either ET did crash at Roswell, or it did not. There is no "nuance" to that. There is no "in between." Your reference to all this other "philosophy stuff" is interesting but not needed. Some of the witnesses are telling the truth, some are not. It is our job to "vet" and to determine veracity.

    Rather than reading all the "intangible" stuff that you clearly do- read a book on law and evidence. Read a book on the recounting of history.

    We can arrive at truth, without such distracting philosophy as you spout.

    You do realize that if even only one individual of the hundreds who have come forward to attest to the ET nature of the event is telling the truth, nothing else matters?

    Why the "obsession" with Roswell? Well, if Roswell was real, it makes all of the other "lights in the sky" and other such sightings secondary. They necessarily take a back seat to Roswell. And the resulting paradigm-shifting implications of the crash become evident. The reality of Roswell speaks to very fundamental realities: We are not alone and never have been. There are sentients who are greater than us. We are not the center of the universe. These are things I fear you cannot handle- which is why the knee-jerk reaction and your need to resort to "philosophy" about the event.

    If physical evidence presents itself- what will you say then Bruce? Your mythopoeia becomes meaningless.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • I'm with Bruce on this one, Tony.

    The Roswell story is very like the Jesus story.

    The hermeneutics, theology, and exegeses are comparable.

    The implications are similar too.

    ET comes to Earth, the Son of God comes to Earth and we have witnesses, no definite proof, but tales, memories, believers and not.

    The myths are identical almost.

    Bruce has it right, both events are mythological, so far.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • In response to the comment that at some future time yet to be determined, my penchant for meaning in metaphor will become worthless..in this specific story..I don't think the two are separable. There is a metaphor driving this behavior of adherents to this story and yet the behavior may have a corollary in actual truth. One could say, stripped of myth that Moses was still a very remarkable advocate and activist for social freedom for the minority just as JC was likely a very remarkable activist for the cause of reforming Judaism. As you say there may be a core story behind the myths,but again I think this whole exercise has absolutely nothing to do with a methodical study of the phenomenon itself.

    By Blogger Bruce Duensing, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • Sorry, RR, I'm with Tony on this one. All of the religious stories, regardless of the religion, are just stories as far as the scientific method is concerned. None can (ever) be scientifically confirmed. You believe on faith...or you don't. The Roswell story, unlike the others, COULD be scientifically confirmed if we can get the physical evidence to confirm it. And why some criticize anyone who attempts to get that evidence with Roswell( and who honestly attempts to separate fact from fiction) is beyond me.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • Dear Tony writes: If physical evidence presents itself- what will you say then Bruce? Your mythopoeia becomes meaningless.

    Dunno if there will be enough experts here regarding mass spectrography analysis, DNA analysis, or so on-like and such sort of physical and scientific evidences we are in right to attempt here, you seems being promised...
    Extraordinary claims (an ETcraft and his occupants have been crashed and taked by USAAF in 1947) requiere extraordinary evidence (DNA, mass spectrography, etc.), you will probably agree.

    By the way, you last comment, Tony, echoing with some Bruce comments, remembers me (again, that's an obsession!) words of ethnologist Charles Ziegler (p.51 in my edition) :

    "Thus, the central motif of the Roswell myth is that a malevonent monster (the gouvernment) has sequestered an item essential to humankind (wisdom of a transcendantal nature, i.e., evidence-based knowledge that we are not alone in the univers). The culture heros (the ufologist) circumvents the monster and (by investigatory prowess) releases the essential item (wisdom) for humankind".

    Regards,

    Gilles

    By Blogger Gilles Fernandez, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • Dominick:

    Nineteenth Century scientists, along with theologians, archeologists, and philosophers et al. thought they could resolve the Jesus mystery.

    It continues apace, with the Shroud of Turin.

    Roswell is similar.

    The mythology is so entrenched that one has to separate the wheat from the chaff, and that's what Mr. Bragalia and Kevin Randle's Dream Team hopes to do.

    I applaud them for the effort, and hope it bears fruit.

    I also hope that the Jesus divinity is proven -- His disciples went to their deaths because they believed.

    Roswellians aren't so devoted, but just as fervent in a way.

    Science, alone, is not as scrupulously diligent as you would seem to want it to be.

    There are as many rats in science as there are in "ufology."

    The difference, if there is one, is that scientists have some class or intellectual acumen.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • Ziegler, Gilles, makes a point but his view of the mythological construct is rather simplistic.

    The creation of myth is a bit more convoluted or complex than he has it.

    You've read Joseph Campbell (and Jung or Mercea Eliade) to know this.

    If one wants to make a case for Roswell being, totally, a myth they have to come up with better examples than what Ziegler provides.

    (And Roswell is more of a mythos than a myth.)

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • AJB is convinced by, or should I say besotted with, Roswell because of the number of witnesses he claims there are, i.e. the "hundreds who have come forward to attest to the ET nature of the event".

    Aside from the fact that the true figure is about ten, not "hundreds", (the rest merely got it second or third hand from the originators or via the rumor grapevine), does AJB not realise that this is worthless evidence to science, for the simple reason that there is no such thing as an ET, either then or now.

    The term "ET nature" implies an alien intelligence visiting the earth. One day this may indeed happen; one day in the very distant past maybe it did happen.

    But as there is no yardstick or scientific basis for an ET, why does AJB not sit back and ask himself the simple question of how these few witnesses could possibly have known that the debris or 'bodies' they saw was ET in nature. Therefore they cannot "attest" to it being ET, can they?

    Not a single one of them would know a real ET if they saw one. Further, they only claimed to have seen ETs decades afterwards. Why? I think we can answer that question. Shall we say - conditioning by investigators and the prevailing UFO subculture.

    Coupled with having to resort to conspiracy theory (lasting for a 65-year period!) and without one iota of hard or physical evidence, the Roswell ET case is in total ruins.

    It hasn't a leg to stand on and is, and will remain, a fantasy tale.

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • Christopher...

    There is the possibility, is there not, that Roswell involved something extraterrestrial?

    A possibility? Not a probability maybe, but a possibility?

    I'm with you (Gilles and Lance) about what happened; that a myth evolved from the intrusions of such UFO "researchers" as Friedman, et al.

    But one cannot rule out, objectively (and logically) that perhaps what is thought to be the core of the Roswell story -- an ET disaster -- may be true, as remote as that might be.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • Dominick articulates my thoughts on this better than I have. Thank you.

    AJB

    By Blogger Anthony Bragalia, at Wednesday, December 12, 2012  

  • RRR:

    Here is an old WWW source for classic Roswell discussion:

    http://www.cufos.org/Roswell_fs1.html

    By Blogger TheNurse, at Thursday, December 13, 2012  

Post a Comment

<< Home