From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 11:42:24 -0300 Archived: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:46:30 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 08:10:16 -0500 >Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found <snip> >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. But they did! Several newspapers exposed the fact Barauna had hoaxed before, that there were 'negative witnesses', that no officer saw anything, that the photos were hoaxed. Of all the people they asked directly if they saw something, none that could be named confirmed seeing the UFO, with the exception of friends Amilar, Viegas and Barauna. Even friend Mauro Andrade denied seeing something when directly questioned. The head of Servico Aerofotogrametrico Cruzeiro do Sul stepped forward to state his company had nothing to do with analyzing the negatives. The House representative, Magalhaes, was appaled by the fact the Navy didn't get written statements from the witnesses even weeks after the event. The problem is, mostly only the news clippings supporting the case have circulated since. Nobody properly investigated this case in half a century afterwards. >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. The press did shoot down the story. The embarassment of having Navy authorities endorsing the case, and even the President, when in a matter of days the press exposed the backstory of Barauna and the giant holes in the event was one of the reasons that all suggests an actual follow-up investigation was not conducted by the Navy. At the time there were rumours from the Navy that - after the hoax was exposed - they were thinking about starting a criminal investigation against Barauna. But all suggests this was never conducted. It was an embarassment to the Navy authorities, and a delicate point in the tension between the military and the President - who released the photos without consulting the Navy Command. But there was no silence. For months the press profited from the photos, both promoting the case as real or exposing them as a hoax. Also, both Amilar and Jansen confirmed to us that there was no order of silence, to them, at least. It's just that they were never asked to testify, and in the case of Jansen, nobody asked them about the case. >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. Again, the whistle-blowers, stating Barauna was a competent hoaxer who had hoaxed before, or stating they had seen nothing, or that their company had not analyzed anything, did show up. >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. And to believers, even this stating he was actually there on deck and had seen nothing at all is once again ignored as 'a flea'. You see, of all the known names in this story, all of them denied seeing something when directly questioned, with the exception of friends Barauna, Amilar and Viegas. Bacellar denied. Saldanha denied. Moreira denied. Andrade denied. Azevedo denied. Almeida denied. And now, Jansen denied. And this is just the testimonial evidence. Even if by a miracle one, two or perhaps all the around eight, 13 or 15 witnesses do show up and some or even most of them do claim to have seen something, the fact is, their testimonies are contradictory - Barauna, Amilar and Viegas contradict themselves in very important points - including at least one witness who claims he saw nothing at all and who suggests the others could have been "induced". The testimonial evidence is extremely dubious. So, if one sticks to the physical evidence, as they should, well, there are also giant holes there, so much so that many who defended all the details of Barauna story now concede that the photos could have been hoaxed. But a sighting happened. Well, a sighting happened indeed, but one so ordinary that we can only come to the conclusion that Trindade is indeed one of the biggest fiascos in Ufology. 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