From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 17:33:33 -0300 Archived: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:20:22 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 18:45:41 +0100 >Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found <snip> >A 1958 Brazilian Navy intelligence evalutaion stating not only >that there _were_ Navy witnesses, but that it had indeed been >they in the bow and stern of the ship who raised the initial >alarm on deck, was never considered by you as bearing on the >answer to that question, because after all everyone is fallible, >even Navy intelligence captains and their Navy sources (in >particular the Navy's designated cognizant technical >investigator on the spot, Capt Bacellar), and there's always >room for doubt, right? This is the intelligence evaluation that failed to evaluate that Barauna was very well-known in his home-town (a few miles from where the Navy Intelligence was located) for being a hoaxer, and for having conned a newspaper before. A single journalist visiting the place and making a few questions managed to find these things. Barauna himself bragged about being a hoaxer, not only to the often quoted Joaquim Simoes, but to several of his fellows. This is the intelligence evaluation that, as far as we know, didn't get any written statements from any witness with the exception of Barauna himself. The only two other known witnesses, Amilar Vieira and Jose Viegas, were not even asked to testify. If, as stated in the report, the Navy witnesses besides Barauna didn't give a coherent testimony, why didn't they ask for the civilians, well-educated persons who actually gave statements to the press, to testify for them? But Amilar was *never* asked to testify in any investigation of any sort, besides those of contemporary newspapers, and then decades later, when Alexandre Borges located him again. This is the intelligence report that has been trusted as the final evaluation of the case, when from the beggining its shortcomings were exposed by the press. >Similarly the fact that the Captain of the Almirante Saldanha >told the US Assistant Naval Attache in 1958 that his own >Executive Assistant, a Navy Commander, had himself seen it (the >officer in question did not deny it when questioned), was I >suspect considered by you a wholly negligible fact, presumably >for similar reasons. This is the Captain that later on published a book where he mentions the Bermuda Triangle as a great mystery. He believed in the sighting. If his Executive Assistant did not actually see anything, one assumes he would feel embarassed to contradict his superior. Furthermore, the same Intelligence Report you trust states no officer saw anything. >1958 statements by another officer on the ship, Capt Paulo de >Castro Moreira da Silva, attested to at least five Navy >witnesses in addition to the three civilians. I expect you can >articulate good reasons why this has never seemed to have any >weight. Those who understand Portuguese know that "umas oito", an indefinite article in the plural form, means there's much uncertainty as to the given number. Assuming "at least eight" is not very appropriate. It could have been even less, it could have been more. But certainly one would not refer to "umas oito" if there were something like 48 witnesses. >One of those civilians, govt banker Amilar Vieira, was from the >start a reluctant witness who, AFAICS, earned the somewhat >baffled respect of sceptics who interviewed him recently before >his death by insisting clearly and firmly that he saw an object, >that this was the simple fact and that he would never deny it, >whatever may be said about Barauna and his photos. I don't >recall that discussion of these interviews on this list excited >you to comment. I respect his testimony just as much as I respect Jansen's testimony. Both may be correct, both may not be. Certainly none of them can be taken as the Revelated Message of Truth. The only person we know for sure has lied in this story is Almiro Barauna. >Even the recent "hoax" claimant, Barauna's nephew Marcelo >Ribeiro who said (unintelligibly as it happens) that his uncle >opportunistically faked the photos using Carioca bus tokens >(bluntly, impossible), said Barauna privately assured him that >"in reality, people saw something", but he dismissed it as a >strange "cloud phenomenon" or something else. I don't think it's unintelligible. Also, I disagree tokens would be impossible. I suspect we will never be able to determine what was the original image used for the hoax, but there's no reason why the "Carioca fleet chips" couldn't have been the original source. That the same image was reused in at least two of the four photos in the series is quite evident, and it was since the original ATIC evaluation. Again, already in 1958 vital pieces of information were already there, but were ignored by Ufologists, and ignored to this day. >Having been singularly unimpressed by any testimony old or new >tending to indicate the existence of Navy witnesses, could you >explain why now, without even the ghost of a question, you >wholeheartedly - not to say recklessly - embrace the 50-year-old >memory-based opinion of one Edson Jansen Ferreira that there was >nothing there? If you search for the long debate on this case I think you will find that it has been claimed that the absence of a single "negative eyewitness" was clear evidence in favor of the case, even in the absence of confirmation for more than three eyewitnesses, all friends and civilians, two of which gave confirmation to the press but were never directly pressioned by the Navy or any authority. In my understanding of Rimmer's short comment, and from the subject I chose for my message, we are refuting this specific argument. This so far single "negative eyewitness" who claims he was on deck and didn't see anything has been found. From there it doesn't automatically follow the case is a hoax, that his word is Revelation. But it simply follows that there's at least one person who claims he was there and didn't see anything. The proposed scenario that there was nothing in the sky and from many people a handful was "induced" to see, or mistake something for a flying saucer becomes more plausible. There may be more people, outside Barauna's circle of friends, who may claim to have seen something. This would be very important. Jansen himself states that several other people pointed to the sky claiming to see something, as our interviews portrait. But, as Jansen's testimony doesn't prove there was nothing, it wouldn't prove there was actually something in the sky. The most relevant point here is: there were only a few people who believed they saw something, and at least one who didn't. Barauna lied when he claimed everyone saw it, or most importantly when he mentioned dozens of people saw something. Even Amilar was dismissive when I asked him if there were dozens of people who also saw something. <snip> >(Kentaro refers to some ambiguity in >his assurance that he was on deck at the right time, which may >be clarified when the full interview is made available - and why >not now, BTW?). There's a lot for me to publish, as you know, Martin. This is not the only new piece of evidence or even testimony we have found. Martinho published almost his whole unedited interview already - he even published some saucy parts, those who understand Portuguese will listen to very personal details of Jansen's adventures as a sailor at the time. He only cut what just *had* to be cut. If anyone wants they can ask him for the whole unedited recording. I can share mine, as I have shared mine, with other researchers, including Martinho, who listened to my interview before he conducted his. >Just as it has some weight that the only >surviving "crony" reaffirmed, rather credibly IMO, that he saw >something. It ought also to have some weight that Jansen >himself, whilst saying that he was not himself a crewman who >believed he saw something, confirms that there were crewmen who >did. I agree. No single piece of evidence, isolated, allows us to draw any conclusions. But together, they point to a very clear direction. There's much to discuss, and I have to publish what I have to publish. I think the case has so many details, and people revert so often to the same old points, that it's better to publish an analysis online and then have them reviewed by peers - as you know, Martin - instead of discussing it back and forth. But I thought these points should be made here for the time being. Cheers, Kentaro Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast At: http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/ These contents above are copyright of the author and UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced without the express permission of both parties and are intended for educational use only.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp