From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:10:16 -0500 Archived: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:05:02 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >From: John Rimmer <johnrimmer.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 23:34:42 +0100 (BST) >ubject: 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 >>>From: John Rimmer <johnrimmer.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:34:55 +0100 (BST) >>>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>>>From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 10:30:51 -0300 >>>>Subject: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>>Game, set and match. >>John, >>Do you mean that the question of whether any Navy crew witnesses >>saw the object, apart from Barauna and his civilian companions, >>has at last been answered - in the negative? And is it your >>conclusion that, therefore, an object allegedly seen only by >>Barauna and those often charmingly referred to as his "cronies" >>never existed? <snip> >Gosh, what a long question[,] Martin. In other words, you're not even going to try to argue with somebody who knows what he's talking about. >As you might have guessed by >now, and from my response to dear Alfredo, my comment was >largely aimed at Jerry Clark who, for what seems like a hundred >years, has been droning on about the necessaity of finding a >'negative' witness. And I guess I will have to continue to do so, after it turns out that the current informant doesn't qualify. It would have helped, John, if you'd actually read what he was saying. >I of course have been claiming for about the same length of time >that there are unlikely ever to be any, because who would >particularly be bothered making a big point of not seeing >anything. Which wildly misrepresents what I was saying, what you said, and what the discussion was about. Let us take a refresher course in the memory you apparently have lost: In fact, I argued that given the intense publicity the Trindade case got in Brazil, not to mention around the world, it was indeed strange, perhaps even telling, that in all those years nobody on the ship had come forward to validate the hoax theory - which has always been that nothing happened, nobody had seen what he believed to be a UFO, that the photographer fixed it up and made up a story to fit. If that was the case, any number of people who were there could have blown the whistle. One can imagine how much a Brazilian newspaper or television show would have loved to shoot down the biggest UFO story in the nation's history. The informant could have even sold his tale and received a nice check for his efforts. Instead, silence. For many years afterwards, as the story continued to be publicized, those whistle-blowers, alive and well, could have stepped forward. John knew better than to argue that they were surely all dead, because they weren't. Now, somebody steps forward to acknowledge that people on the ship believed they had seen something and were quite excited about it. He just didn't see it himself and speaks only for himself. Okay, he didn't see it, but something - not nothing - happened, in the way that some of us miss seeing something, apparent to others, against the sky. No big thing, except to eager debunkers a flea has become an elephant. Incidentally, can you imagine how debunkers would have reacted to the testimony of an old man decades after the fact if he had made a _positive_ pro-UFO claim? That's a rhetorical question. Jerry Clark 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