From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 12:27:12 -0600 Archived: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 06:29:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 15:26:48 +0100 >Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 10:44:28 -0600 >>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found Martin, I concur with your assessment of Brito's testimony. In the context of the case as a whole, I give it virtually zero weight, along with the other recent (Ribiero, Bittencourt) 'revelations'. Some specific comments: >Brito dismisses Bacellar as a publicity-seeking liar: "It's a >lie. You know the story of five minutes of fame? Five minutes of >fame to be named in an encyclopedia published in articles." Definitely soom room for disagreement as to which of Bacellar or Brito was/is after five minutes of fame. >Borges asks about Barauna's negatives being shown on board after >development as described in detail in the Navy intelligence >report. >Brito says, "Nao mostrou negativo pra ningu=E9m, pelo >contr=E1rio", which I think means, "He didn't show negatives to >anyone, on the contrary". >Brito then goes on to claim that he was called by an Admiral >from navy Intelligence who said, "Carlos, if you can, get a look >at the negatives", but apparently Barauna proposed to do some >sort of treatment first (presumably the famous "clearing" or >reducing ; Brito says "I don't understand photography"). This section doesn't translate very clearly. I get something like: Q: Barauna came to show the negatives after they left the darkroom? A: On the contrary, he showed the negatives to no one. I was contacted by my boss, who was the Admiral Aristeas, the Information Service of Intelligence, [who] said: "Carlos, [see] if you can look at the negatives." But Barauna[,] with [the] story "I will reveal [the images] better, I'll go again in the fixer, etc."... =46rom which one gathers that Barauna either didn't offer the negatives for examination at all (which contradicts other testimony), or else he first wanted to give them additional time in the fixer, and Brito didn't bother to follow up later. >One other point worth noting. Borges suggests that if the object >was in the sky for only 20 seconds (citing some newspaper) then >maybe this would explain why some people did not get to see it. >Brito responds to the effect that they only wrote 20 seconds >just to be able to say something; "What is 20 seconds? It is >nothing". An airliner would virtually disappear in 20 seconds, >he objects. They had more time, perhaps "a minute, a minute and >a half, or two minutes". But "it was a hoax, a conspiracy by a >handful of actors". Notwithstanding the small weight I attach to Brito's opinion on this, the ambiguity in the sighting duration is a crucial issue in general, as you well know. I don't believe that an interval as short as 20 seconds is physically compatible with the evolution of the cloud patterns in the photos, for any tenable atmospheric conditions that would not themselves have been noted as remarkable at the time. Like you, I'm also very interested in seeing the original text of the newspaper Folha da Tarde of 25 February 1958 (I was unaware of the additional 0 Estado de Sao Paulo reference you mention), which allegedly includes corroborative testimony from crewmen obtained in Santos _after_ Barauna et al had disembarked. Mike 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