From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:34:01 -0300 Archived: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:28:43 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2011 16:39:46 -0600 >Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >Hello Kentaro, >I generally find us in agreement, but as with the other recent >'developments' in this case, i.e., the 50+ year delayed (and >contradictory) revelations from nephew Ribiero and 'family >friend' Bittencourt, I'm somewhat surprised at the level of >significance you attach to this. Hi Mike, The level of significance to me is that the testimonial evidence is extremely dubious. And it has been for over half a century a staple of the case, as it has been assumed without proper research that dozens of military witnesses saw the flying saucer and confirmed it in the still wet negatives. In fact, the number of actual eyewitnesses is very probably less than a dozen; the number of known, confirmed eyewitnesses, is still limited, despite thorough search, to three (3) friends and then civilians Barauna, Amilar and Viegas; and all the other known witnesses, when asked if they saw anything, denied having seeing anything at all. Once again: Bacellar denied. Saldanha denied. Moreira denied. Andrade denied. Azevedo denied. Almeida denied. Jansen denied. And now, we add Brito. Brito denied. So, we have three friends claiming to having seen something, against eight others, including three officers, two sailors, one scientist, one other photographer and even another friend of Barauna (!) stating they saw nothing. >Suppose that Jansen's long-delayed ('nobody bothered to ask me') >account is credible. I agree this would be cause for concern, >but (1) it doesn't establish that others didn't see the object, >only that _he_ didn't; and (2) it's one input among several of >ostensibly equal weight. As Jansen himself puts it: "There. It's >my word against his." Actually, it's his word against _multiple_ >others. I could concede all testimonial claims have equal weight, but one just have to notice that all those that claim to have seen something were the three friends, and even at the time their testimony was contradictory - for instance, they couldn't even agree between the three of them who was first to see the flying saucer. Jansen's word is in agreement with Brito's now, and with six others. The difference is that the six others believed there was something in the sky but they couldn't see it because they "didn't arrive in time" to see it. Jansen and Brito thought different: they claim they were there, they saw people still pointing to the sky and claiming to still see something, but themselves, they saw nothing. Actually, I'm surprised that no believer has yet come with the interpretation that the easiest and less "damaging" way to interpret Jansen's and Brito's testimony is simply to claim they, like all the six other negative witnesses, didn't arrive in time. As they arrived late on deck, there was still a commotion, but by that time the commotion was indeed just hysteria. It doesn't mean the commotion wasn't started by an actual sighting. And indeed, it doesn't mean that. What it means is that the testimony as a whole is extremely dubious, and established facts about it have been evidenced as false. We can't assume eight eyewitnesses were all simply late arriving on deck unless we're working with the assumption the sighting was real. One has to concede it's possible, even probable, that at least one of these eight witnesses should have arrived in time - two of them claim they were there in time and should see something - but they saw nothing. So, the testimonial evidence is extremely dubious in providing support for the case. >There's apparently no dispute that there was some commotion on >deck, with multiple people at least behaving as if they were >seeing something remarkable in the sky. Can we seriously suppose >that, after the fact, no one (including Naval Intelligence) >would have considered it noteworthy that the only people >pointing up in the sky and making a ruckus were those three >clowns from the diving club? I already wrote to Shough in the List pointing to the serious problems in the known Intelligence Report - which, also for the sake of the believers, we assume is real, but which is only known in full as a translation to English given to APRO, where the sender asked the original to be destroyed. Fellow Mary Castner has the fac-simile of that which is the most reliable source - an English translation given to the Lorenzens. The Portuguese versions circulating are actually translations of the English version back to Spanish, and then back to Portuguese. Shough himself found that out and corrected me. So, even assuming this English translation and the short snippets that leaked to the press at the time are indeed accurate, we still have the problems with it I listed to Shough again. For decades this Report has been assumed as a thorough investigation, when its shortcomings were clear from the beginning. >Obviously such antics could "induce" bystanders to look up into >the sky, but it is another matter entirely to induce them to >actually see, even point at, a non-existent object, then get >them to agree afterwards that it looked just like the object in >a photo that Barauna had fabricated beforehand. It strikes me as >vastly more plausible that these other 'witnesses' were simply >co-conspirators (which I do not rule out). Of the only three known 'positive' witnesses, Barauna, Viegas and Amilar, one of them, Amilar, never saw the negatives. So we don't know who or even how many were those that claimed to have seen something and confirmed it afterwards in the negatives besides Barauna himself and Viegas. Even Barauna is said not to have seen the object in the negatives at first. I agree it would be plausible to think they should be co- conspirators, but then, one has to notice that according to Barauna's account, it was Bacellar himself that noticed the UFO did appear in the images. You see, an officer. And if Bacellar, who had seen nothing, could think there was an UFO in the negatives, perhaps other sailors could have been "induced" here too. In any event, and again, we don't know who or even how many saw something and confirmed it in the "still wet" negatives. We know any object the size that would later appear in prints would be around a milimeter or less in the negatives, we know that Barauna himself stated that in the original roll the object had very little contrast, and that he had to treat the negatives, and the prints we know, where the object is already fuzzy in comparison with the Island, are the already treated ones. >But as long as we're speculating, one could as well suppose that >Jansen has ever since resented the fact that he never saw the >object, and now that there's no one left to contradict him, he's >claiming that the deckhands were all manipulated into a group >hallucination. Yes, that's a possible speculation, but now we have Brito to lend support to Jansen, and as far as I know they were from different groups. >I agree that the testimonial evidence in this case is dubious, >including Jansen's. New revelations from individuals coming out >of decades-long hibernation are particularly so. Not to >trivialize or discourage your research, I think the only >testimony that would significantly sway opinion at this point >would be from a co-conspirator with an airtight account of _how_ >the hoax was executed. They are all dead now. Proper research should have been conducted in the years after the event. Unfortunately, it wasn't. And there's reason to suggest that the exact details of how Barauna created the photos will never be known, as he worked alone in his lab and gave contradictory versions to different people even when confessing the hoax. You see, this was a man who spontaneously told contactee Marco Petit - because Petit didn't ask him about it at all - that he had indeed hoaxed, that is, sold to a newspaper a completely false story and photos of a treasure chest. In the photos, he appears besides the hoaxed chest. One would think any normal person would not spontaneously admit a hoax unless pressured into it. One would think that a hoaxer would not have his own face appearing in the hoaxed photos. But Barauna did that, and he told the story with visible joy. He was trickster, and the interpretation that even when he confessed, he may have given contradictory and even absurd accounts of what happened is not far-fetched. He gave contradictory and absurd accounts from the start. His niece seems to think the negatives were analyzed by NASA. He claimed they were analyzed by Kodak. He said the ship's radar picked the UFO. >That all said, I concede that for my own part I also suspect a >hoax, if not for very good reasons, and indeed not for any of >the reasons you've proposed, aside from the observation that >Barauna had (and even demonstrated) both the skill and >inclination to perpetrate one. Yes, that is the most important thing that the Intelligence Evaluation failed to evaluate, and that was exposed in the press in a matter of hours after the story exploded. But it has since been downplayed by believers. You should add that Baruna had also demonstrated he was capable of profiting from a hoax (treasure chest), that he was capable of lying about it to the press (when the press exposed it, he denied the chest story was a hoax), and that he found it very amusing (in 1997, he spontaneously told the story while laughing about it). >As you suggest above, I'm trying to stick to the physical >evidence, and I think the clues are in the photos themselves, >although as yet I'm unable to quantify what troubles me about >them. In the meantime I note, with interest but not undue >excitement, this latest input from Jansen. I look forward to >whatever additional material you may present. I will try to publish it in the next couple of weeks. >BTW, in your post you say that Barauna claimed 150 people saw >the object. What is the source for this? In a written statement >he made in January 1967, Barauna estimated that "around 50 >people" were on deck. It's in the news clippings. I will share what we got. Regards, 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