Over the years Walter
Haut made many recorded statements about what he had done and seen in Roswell
in July, 1947. For decades, all he had done, according to those statements,
including many to me, was write the press release. He had taken that release to
the various media outlets in Roswell… or he had called them and read the
release to them over the telephone. He signed an affidavit to that effect and
told the story to dozens of UFO researchers, reporters and documentary
producers.
![]() |
| Walter Haut on the set of "Roswell." Photo copyright Kevin D. Randle |
On April 20, 1989, I
talked to Haut briefly. I was asking about the events there in Roswell and he
was answering with one word answers which weren’t rude, just brief. Telling me
again of the event and how he hadn’t done all that much, he finally said, “I hate
to be that way but…” meaning just falling back on his standard answers
including that his only role was to write the press release.
In May, 1993, he
created and signed an affidavit saying basically the same thing. He had written
the press release, and that was it. That was all he knew. That was his only
involvement in the case.
But then, in 2000, he
began to hint that he had seen more. He told Wendy Connors and Dennis Balthaser
that he had been heavily involved. He later signed an affidavit prepared by Don
Schmitt suggesting he had seen the remains of the craft and he had seen one of
the bodies, or maybe more of them, it all just depended on which statement you
heard. He had kept the secret as he had promised back in 1947 and he didn’t
want this new affidavit released until after his death, though he certainly
hadn’t been overly quiet about these new claims. Here, now, was an affidavit by
one of the officers allegedly included in the inside circle of the staff,
signing a legal document that suggested he had seen alien beings. It was an
extraordinary document if it could be believed.
In the last couple of
years, I have been looking through the files, documents, transcripts and
newspaper clippings that I have collected over the years concerning the Roswell
case. I have, literally, file cabinets filled with the information so that my
review has not been as fast as it could have been.
The problem I found concerning
Haut is not that his earlier statements contradict his later statements, but
that his later statements were highly confused and highly contradictory. Haut is on the record in too many places
saying that all he did was write the press release. In fact, in one of those
earlier interviews filmed in 1979, Haut said, “Colonel
Blanchard told [me] to put out [a] news release concerning [the] flying disc
but that [I] couldn’t see it…”
In listening to
people describing what they had seen and done, you sometimes hear what are
often termed as “weasel words.” This means that they don’t want to lie but they
are attempting to avoid the truth. Frank Kaufmann was skilled at this. He was
famous for saying, “Well, I think so…” Not that something was true, but that “I
think so.”
But this statement by
Haut, made on film in 1979, is quite definitive. Haut was saying that Blanchard
was not allowing him to see it. No flipping or flopping but a strong, positive statement
that he stayed with for more than two decades.
Compare that
statement to those made in the interviews conducted after 2000, where he was
saying that he had only written the press release and then saying he had seen a
craft and the bodies. Or that he had seen one body and then back to the
original idea that he had only written the press release. He would often
contradict himself within a single paragraph and sometimes in a single sentence.
Anyone seeing these confused interviews would be concerned about the clear and
concise statements in that later affidavit. It is just too perfect given how
those statements have been gathered after 2000.
This one quote, “but
that [I] couldn’t see it,” tells us a great deal and I would suggest that it
tends to render that later affidavit as inaccurate at best. It would seem that
it suggests we should reject the affidavit in light of what he had said for
decades. I don’t know the motivation for his changing his mind about it. All I
know is that I find the original statements, especially that about not being
allowed to see “it” as much more persuasive than this affidavit cobbled
together from what seem to be the ramblings of a witness more than half a
century after the event. One statement was clear and concise and said many
times and the other was something that came more than a half century after the
fact and wasn’t all that clear . But then, it really comes down to what you
wish to believe and which statements you trust the most. For me it is those
given for so many years and not those that came so late in the game.


