UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Apr > Apr 21

Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found

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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com