 |
||
|
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - August 16, 2007 Implications ...
Amidst all the controversy of the recent release of the latest Walter Haut affidavit, one piece of common ground might well be to weigh the implications of that document for this current presidential campaign. In other words, if one were to present the contents of that affidavit -- and these are no small contents -- to the candidates for the nominations of both parties, what do you think might happen and how far might that affidavit lead to a kind of Jimmy Carter promise to “tell the American people the truth about UFOs?” First, remember that Steve Bassett has written in UFO Magazine that the disclosure ticket might be a Clinton/Richardson ticket. I suggest that one way to get there is to look at how what Haut said might influence the election campaign and move Bill Richardson to embrace a UFO campaign plank. Here’s a modest proposal for the Richardson campaign. I would ask his campaign people to read the Haut affidavit first. After all, it was written in New Mexico, so it has a New Mexico connection. I would suggest that because the affidavit is precise in what it purports to describe and that there is extrinsic evidence -- namely Haut’s 2000 interview with Dennis Balthaser and Wendy Connors, Haut’s interview with a French film crew that same year in which he revealed the same information about his seeing the alien bodies, and Haut’s reported statements to museum visitors about his having seen the bodies -- to support that affidavit, there is no shame in taking that affidavit at face value. In other words, assume, just for the sake of argument that Walter Haut is truthfully reporting the events of July 8, 1947. If we do that and if Richardson even suggests publicly that this is something worth investigating, then he could even make a campaign appearance at the X-Conference to answer uestions about a disclosure campaign. If I were advising him, I wouldn’t promise the same kind of disclosure that Jimmy Carter promised. Rather, I would suggest that I would investigate the ramifications of disclosure. What’s the difference? Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that disclosure might well compromise U.S. national security information and thus raise in advance the ire of those tasked to protect that information. How can one keep honest and not engender that anger? Simply by saying that disclosure would compromise U.S. national security information. In other words, “As a former Cabinet Secretary and governor of the state where the Roswell Incident reportedly took place, I would love to tell you all about UFOs. "Only for me to do so would be extraordinarily naïve because telling you so as to compromise some national security assets would also be to tell our adversaries out there about those assets. Therefore, I will answer some questions, but I can’t really delve into what I believe I know because to do so would be a threat to the U.S.” Wow. Just imagine a candidate doing that. Just imagine Richardson’s profile soaring through the roof. You mean there is a candidate telling the truth about what he can’t say and why? That’s the candidate for me. And while I still may vote for someone else, I want Bill as my vice president. And then, no matter who wins the Democratic primary, Bill might well be the obvious choice. Therefore, not to seem partisan, I think that the New Mexico connection plays toward Bill Richardson and that if he wanted to jump himself out of the single digits, the Walter Haut affidavit may give him just what he needs to do so. Bill Birnes |
Want to exchange links? |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
• this issue • subscribe • past issues • coming up • sightings • news • columnists • reviews • colleagues • conferences • products • filament books • books • radio • links • advertisers • blogs • writers • about us • |
|
|
|
|
- - - - - email - - - - - |
|
