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: 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


>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

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.


Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



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