From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:26:04 +0100 Archived: Fri, 29 Apr 2011 12:35:43 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 15:49:04 -0600 >Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:13:16 +0100 >>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>>From: Kentaro Mori <kentaro.mori.nul> >>>To: post.nul >>>Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:15:57 -0300 >>>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 14:29:49 -0600 >>>>Subject: Re: Trindade 'Negative Witness' Found >>><snip> >>>>Assuming they were not colluding, is there any indication >>>>that Barauna could have known, prior to boarding, about the >>>>alleged previous sightings in the area and/or Bacellar's >>>>mission to gather information about them? >>>Yes. We do know that already in the trip to the Island there >>>were many comments about the previous flying saucer sightings. >>>Sources and details in our upcoming work. >>A few years ago when I wanted an answer to Mike's question, and >>when nobody was willing to share with me their copies of the >>ship's log, I calculated from known time and distance information >>on the return trip and the speed and direction of ocean currents >>that that it must have taken, conservatively, at least six days >>to get to the island from Rio. Since she arrived on Jan14 this >>would mean that she left Rio on Jan 07, or Jan 08. >This is consistent with Barauna's testimony in an interview with >Joao Martins, published in O Cruzeiro on 08 Mar 1958, where he >states explicitly that the ship left Rio on 08 Jan (see Olavo >Fontes three-part article on Trindade, archived at the CUFOS >web site [http://tinyurl.com/3q2c5fb], originally in the APRO >Bulletins of Jan, Mar, and May 1960). >>I now have a copy of most of the ship's log, and as far as I can >>tell the ship did indeed depart Rio on the morning of Jan 08, but >>the more significant thing is that Barauna (with Amilar and >>Viegas) is recorded coming aboard on the morning of Jan 07. >>The first sighting on the island was on Dec 31 1957. It was >>reported to the Navy High Command in Capt. Bacellar's radiogram >>on that same date, Dec 31. >>So Barauna was already on the ship one week after the very >>_first_ incident _occurred on Trindade. >Fontes, in the same reference above, alleges that there was more >sighting activity going on than that. Specifically, that "...at >least six other sightings had been made at the Island before the >arrival of that ship, in less than two months", beginning with >an incident involving Bacellar himself in late November 1957, >shortly after start-up of the oceanographic/meteorological >facility. I can't personally attest to the reliability of Fontes >material, but he's evidently quite knowledgeable about the >case. Hi Mike I agree that Fontes seems to be a usually reliable reporter. You're right about the early incident he mentions. I read this over again and compared it with the intelligence report. I'd concluded previously that there was only one balloon incident and that in this case Fontes was duplicating the same information in two different versions, one from Brandao and another from unstated sources (evidently incuding Bacellar himself). But I now see this was possibly wrong. It's clear there were two incidents during balloon releases, and Fontes does place one in late November, which he says was the first sighting on the island according to Bacellar. The intelligence report doesn't record the dates of either of Bacellar's sightings, and only one is described, but it is very clear that neither one was responsible for Bacellar's decision to send the radio report to the Navy High Command in Rio. Brandao says that this report which "gave origin to the present investigation" was prompted by the sighting on Dec 31 1957, and that seems to be confirmed by the quoted reference number 0012312335, which in the usual military date-time group format would probably indicate reciept at 2335 local on the 31st of the 12th. Bacellar received instructions back from the Chief of the Navy High Command via document No. 005 dated 1/6/1958. Fontes however says that it was after Bacellar's first balloon- release sighting - the very first sighting according to Bacellar - "a radio message signed by Com. Bacellar was sent to Rio reporting the events and asking for instructions." I'm not sure how plausible that is, because in Fontes' account this sighting was a bit weak. It was a slow-moving "speck" of light high in the morning sky. In a theodolite it seemed to waver or oscillate a bit but basically "seemed round, or looked like a planetary disk", and it was watched for 3 hours until it just faded away. The original conclusion was that the object was Venus, according to Fontes, but they checked the azimuth and elevation and decided it didn't fit. Maybe it wasn't Venus - but would this observation merit action to the extent of alerting the High Command by radio? And then there is the long delay of perhaps 6 weeks in getting back those "instructions". Well, perhaps there were other communications and perhaps Rio waited until other events had happened before ordering any special investigation? On the other hand, several details associated to the "first" (late Nov) incident by Fontes are associated to Bacellar's "second [undated] observation" in the intelligence report (given as Jan 6 by Fontes) - for example, the 3 hour period, a motion "with the same angular velocity as the sun", the check on planetary positions - whilst the intelligence report's version of this "second observation" also contains some features - for example the temporary disappearance of a balloon into a cloud etc - which read like more sober versions of dramatic features in Fontes' account of the "first" sighting. This overlap was the main reason why I initially concluded there were two confused account of one balloon incident. But Brandao does seem to record two similar incidents :- "a phenomenon he had personally observed, over the Island, two times on different occasions, with the help of a high-precision theodolite and in daylight". I don't really know what to make of this and I'm not satisfied that Fontes' November date is in this instance necessarily reliable, but I concede it's less clear than I thought and it is possible that Bacellar reported something on an earlier date than the radio message that started the Navy ball rolling on Dec 31 1957. Nevertheless it remains true that the first evidence of the Navy High Command making any response to events is the reply to Bacellar of Jan 6 1958. Martin 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