Jersey John
Paranormal Novice
From MarsAve
There are many questions, about the document, as well as the underlying story. For example...
In short, I have questions. I hope we get some more answers on the upcoming Paracast segment.
But, the witness' name is blacked out, the notary's name is given, yet the document isn't notarized (according to the New Mexico requirements). If we find that the document is not what it purports--i.e., that it is not a sworn notarized statement--doesn't it call into question the underlying statements? The purpose of a lawfully notarized statement is that the person giving the statement swears, under oath (or acknowledgment), that he executed the document without duress or incapacity.I don't take any fault in the way the letter was written, as long as there was a witness may make it even more credible - as I feel it is.
There are many questions, about the document, as well as the underlying story. For example...
- Why is the "sworn statement" non-conforming?
- Has anyone produced the notary and/or the witness? We know the notary's name (Beverlee Morgan). Has anyone verified this is her lawfully notarized document?
- Why did Haut selectively tell people he saw the debris and bodies (e.g., Shirkey in 1989)? Did he maintain his secrecy promise to Blanchard or not?
- Doesn't his personal interest in the Roswell story render his representations subject to greater scrutiny? (He was, I believe, co-founder of the Roswell Museum, which employs his daughter. He also was one of the most vocal "it was a UFO crash" advocates for years, notwithstanding his promise of secrecy.)
- Is it not possible that he believed the UFO crash story and felt a small fabrication might help cement further research, maybe even disclosure? He either lied when he said he didn't see debris or bodies or he lied when he later said he did.
In short, I have questions. I hope we get some more answers on the upcoming Paracast segment.