From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul> Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 17:34:33 -0000 Archived: Tue, 08 Feb 2011 12:52:33 -0500 Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case >From: John Rimmer <johnrimmer.nul> >To: post.nul >Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:11:37 +0000 (GMT) >Subject: Re: More On The Trindade Island Case >>From: A. J. Gevaerd - Revista UFO <aj.nul> >>To: <post.nul> >>Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 08:48:03 -0200 >>Subject: More On The Trindade Island Case >>Dear Listers: >>As I informed in my previous message, >http://www.ufoupdateslist.com/2011/feb/m04-013.shtml >>we already have a complete version of the new information about >>the Trindade Island Case available to the International UFO >>Community in the website of the Brazilian UFO Magazine. >I am totally, positively, definitely, absolutely not saying >"told you so!" >Okay? >John Rimmer Leaving John to say whatever it is he is saying, I recommend the wisdom of circumspection. Some first thoughts about this new story: Ribeiro claims that Barauna told him there really was a "UFO" and that people on deck did see it, but that it was not what he photograped - it was only "a weather balloon, or a cloud formation, something". This does not begin to address (e.g.) the emphatic and (IMO) rather credible statements of banker Amilar that he came on deck in time to see a fast moving light- coloured oval object flying over the sea fitting the descriptions also reported by Barauna and Viegas.. Ribeiro says that Barauna told him he had come straight from a photographic dive in which he used up the film roll in his camera ("was taking pictures underwater for the Navy and was climbing to the vessel") so he could only pretend to photograph whatever was really seen. But Barauna told the world, including the Navy, that he was actually using his camera on deck photographing the boat winching at the time. So if he had been diving earlier, he did not use up his film on that dive. This story is corroborated by Capt Bacellar, who noted that the UFO shots he inspected were on the same film roll with pictures taken by Barauna on deck immediately before. Ribeiro says there was nothing at all on these original negatives but empty sky, and rejects the claim that the images of the object were confirmed on the wet negatives by eyewitnesses and others because "people will see anything they want to see". This strikes me as dismissive hand waving. It doesn't begin to address the specific testimony of Capt Bacellar concerning his personal inspection of the images on the still- wet negative roll. Ribeiro claims that Barauna told him he faked the object with a model made of Carioca chips (bus tokens) - a repeat of the crude Mundo Illustrado photo - because "he knew he could do it with the chips". I'm afraid this doesn't make sense. The configuration of the Trindade object absolutely could not be reproduced with the Carioca chips. Ribeiro says that Barauna's earlier and inconsistent alleged claim to Emilia Bittencourt that he used two spoons on a fridge, not bus tokens against the sky, shouldn't be believed. Why? Because Barauna was an inveterate joker who liked winding people up with fake stories. Yet Ribeiro asks us to take Barauna's at- least-equally-implausible claim to him seriously. Should we do so? Until evidence emerges to lift this new claim from the category of the recent and already largely-discredited Bittencourt claim, I suggest cautious scepticism. 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 | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp