From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:10:33 +0100 Archived: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 07:19:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 10:34:01 -0300 >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 <snip> >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. Hi Kentaro I am pleased to discover the source of this rumour, which as you pointed out elsewhere "has been taken as fact by some".. But I think that what may or may not be "taken as fact by some" has nothing to do with Barauna, and is irrelevant polemic, unless it can be demonstrated that Barauna made exactly this claim cynically whilst knowing it to be untrue (hearsay stemming from third parties misinterpreting speculation about what might have been or ought to have been done would not count, of course). I urge you to place on record here the fullest possible analysis of how the claim that Barauna "gave absurd and contradictory claims from the start" is demonstrated by what his "niece seems to think" 50 years after the event. >He claimed they were analyzed by Kodak. Yes, he did, in a discussion over the dinner table involving Hynek, Sprinkle, Granchi and Virgilio S=E1nchez-Ocejo and others in 1982 (or was it 83). He said "The Navy was testing the photographs. I went three times to the Navy's secret service. The Navy also sent the pictures to Kodak to do chemical tests." (That appears to be it according to a transcript at http://www.nicap.org/trindade/cufos_pages/baraunaIUR.htm although other sources refer to a "Kodak lab in Rochester, NY". Is there another version I wonder? is this transcript abbreviated? It's too long since I listened to the tape of the whole discussion) Anyway I dare say it is possible he thought it was true. I'm confident that he did not have the ability to trace the whereabouts of his negatives at all times whilst they were in possession of the Navy. Have you some reason to conclude that he could not possibly have thought it was true? Suppose, for example, that one of the Navy people he had contact with said, "We're going to send the film to Kodak", or "We're thinking of sending the the film to Kodak," or even "We enquired to Kodak about certain characteristics of the film" etc etc.. There is no indication in Brandao's report that they actually did this, or considered doing this; but they may have done it or considered it. Brandao would likely not be the one doing it because the Navy examination of the negs was done by Hydrography and Navigation Department, not the Intelligence Department. As Kentaro will be the first to agree, Brandao's summary of their results is terse to the say the least, and we have no evidence of what inquiries the Navy lab might have considered appropriate in order to "affirm that they are natural", as they did. Alternatively, of course, Barauna may have heard a second-hand rumour about an approach to Kodak from some press contact or ufologist, and had no particular reason to disbelieve it. If, on grounds not clear to me, you completely rule out any such explanation, what sort of cynical advantage do you suppose that Barauna was seeking to gain by making up these "chemical tests" by Kodak, knowing perfectly well (as he must have done) that Brandao's Navy report - with no mention of Kodak - had been in the public domain for nearly 20 years by this time? >He said the ship's radar picked the UFO. Not so fast. In 1958 statements he said that the radar did _not_ pick up the UFO. You know very well that the statement you refer to was made 24 years after the event, in the same 1982 discussion just mentioned, and that the recollection does _not_ just pop fully- formed out of Barauna's mind that day, like the bald-faced "lie" that you wish to portray it as, but rather has an evolutionary history going back to 1958 newspaper stories and ship-board rumours. Forgive me for quoting myself from my website, but it will save some effort: [Begin Quote] With regard to the radar target that Barauna first mentions in the informal Hynek interview of 1982, I agree with Tim Printy that this was very likely a confused memory of the radar target reported the day prior to the UFO incident. As I pointed out to Kentaro Mori in advancing the same suggestion (email, 27 January 2004) the time that Barauna recalls - about 15 minutes before the UFO sighting, i.e., around noon - is in this case accurate, except that he has mentally shifted the event by 24 hours. Slightly different versions of this radar story appeared in the papers O Jornal and O Diario on day-one of the publicity on 21 Feb. In neither case is it clear where the story comes from, although in both cases radar operators are said to have dismissed the echo as a probable malfunction. "On the eve of the sighting, i.e., on January 15th, the saucer had been detected by the ship's radar, also about noon. The men in charge of the device thought the radar was out of order and made a through check to ascertain whether it was working properly." 0 Di=E1rio de S=E3o Paulo, S=E3o Paulo, February 21, 1958 (cited by Simoes) "The day before the sighting, approximately at the same hour, the flying saucer had been spotted by the ship's radar. But radar operators thought that strange 'blip' was caused by some kind of trouble in the apparatus-and rechecked it to see if it was operating properly." O Jornal, Feb 21 (cited by Fontes) Barauna himself is first quoted as recalling this incident 2 weeks later in an interview published in O Cruzeiro March 8 1958. He explicitly says that he was informed by the Navy about the four other visual sightings reported over the island, then appears to add the radar story as an afterthought, suggesting that he may well have picked this up from newspaper stories. In this early statement, howsoever, he still correctly recalls the date of the radar incident as _Jan 15_. [Pause Quote] It should not be made a test of Barauna's genuineness that he be inhumanly immune to the sorts of memory failures, foibles and confusions that afflict all of us. Twenty-four years is a long time for memories and dreams to stew, and it is not even as though those memories are being left to gently simmer, they are being constantly stirred by reporters and ufologists, tasting and adding salt and spice. See also my other mail concerning the evolution of Barauna's narrative concerning the power failure. A decade after the event Barauna is still recalling the ship-board "rumour" of a power failure during the sighting, noting that he _can't_ personally verify it, and only recording his personal knowledge that the ship's machinery stopped for unknown reasons several times on the journey home (and it did - the ship's log records engine- stops for repairs on two occasions when leaving the island). By the time of Barauna's 1982 reminiscence for a table-full of rapt ufologists, at the age of 66, the ship-board rumour of a power failure during the sighting has taken root and has grown into a "memory" that this actually happened, conflated with the radar echo / malfunction newspaper stories, displaced in memory by 24 hours from noon, Jan 15 to noon, Jan 16 1958. [Resume Quote] These radar stories appear in the papers on the same day that Barauna is quoted by Ultima Hora as saying that the Almirante Saldanha's radar was inoperative because it couldn't be _manned_ in time. Now this could be interpreted as being in conflict with his statement 24 years later that the radar was inoperative because power failed. But could he really be expected to know any of these things with authority? If he was extemporising in 1958, and/or embellishing a confused memory in 1982, are these things suspicious? Or merely human? Of course Barauna was not a Navy man, still less a radar operator. And let's remember that all these statements are just hearsay, often third-hand by the time we read them, with ambiguities and inaccuracies in the printed story to be considered as well. Portable voice recording was a pretty esoteric business in 1958 and the usual technological solution would be pencil and short-hand, Q & A being "reconstructed" - usually with a little extra journalistic flavour - back in the office (or in the local bar!). So, yes there may be material contradictions here, or there may not. Barauna might well have been guessing reasons why there was no radar report. Another name for this would be speculating. Reporters enjoy printing speculations as facts. There's no reason to expect that Barauna would be reliably informed about everything. Why shouldn't he give a few foggy answers in the face of persistent questioning? He was on board only as an invited civilian. His first-hand experience was limited to taking the photos and then being part-involved with the Navy tests of the negatives. He heard some things from Bacellar and others during the tests, yes, but he was never a Navy 'insider'. He probably listened to rumours and read the papers like anybody else. In fact we know he did - according to Zaluar he'd kept a scrap-book of news cuttings. He probably rounded out his picture of what happened by absorbing both information and misinformation from such sources, like anyone else. The presumption would be that Barauna had heard tell from Navy sources that there was no radar confirmation. But maybe he didn't know exactly why. Why should he? When asked by a reporter on Day 1 of the publicity he was pressed on this and suggested reasonably that it was all over too quickly, that the radar was not switched on and warmed up, or was not manned - which all amounts to the same thing. (The bit of picture-painting in Ultima Hora about the operator "running" to get to the radar is not very material.) Later he maybe put two and two together, and guessed from hearing of the Navy's concerns about compasses, radars and motors that the radar must have been affected. If Barauna was genuine, indeed, then this is a very natural interpretation. It isn't hard to imagine that as the years went by this notion got conflated with his 'memory' of a stalled boat-winch etc. Alternatively we can conclude that Barauna knew perfectly well that there could have been no radar contact because the whole thing was a hoax, and he decided to "explain" this away by inventing the story that the ship's radar wasn't operating. But then, what if the radar really _was_ operating? A lot of people were in a position to know about that, not least the Navy. If the radar was working, then seeing Barauna telling lies to the papers on the first day would have instantly tipped off the Navy that he was pulling a stunt. He couldn't have made this story a part of his hoax successfully unless he knew that the radar in fact was not working (for whatever reason), in which case it was simply the truth and so gets us nowhere. www.martinshough.com/aerialphenomena/trindade/index.htm [End Quote] <snip> >>I look forward to >>whatever additional material you may present. >I will try to publish it in the next couple of weeks. Let's all hope so. >>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. The "150" figure was used by the Lorenzens in a couple of places. I don't recall where they got it from. See my other mail for some discussion of this issue. Regards Martin Shough 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp