From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> Date: Wed, 11 May 2011 17:39:44 -0600 Archived: Thu, 12 May 2011 06:35:56 -0400 Subject: Re: Trindade Navy Documents Discovered >From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >To: <post.nul> >Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 16:41:37 -0500 >Subject: Re: Trindade Navy Documents Discovered > > >>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >>To: post.nul >>Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 09:20:25 -0600 >>Subject: Re: Trindade Navy Documents Discovered >>>From: Jerome Clark <jkclark.nul> >>>To: <post.nul> >>>Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 08:37:05 -0500 >>>Subject: Re: Trindade Navy Documents Discovered >>>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul> >>>>To: post.nul >>>>Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 19:39:08 -0600 >>>>Subject: Re: Trindade Navy Documents Discovered >>>>Question to anyone: Who actually invited Barauna and the diving >>>>club onboard, and when? If it was Bacellar himself, the plot >>>>would thicken considerably. >>>Then again, maybe not. >>Certainly not for those who weren't paying much attention anyway. >Since I am paying reasonably close attention - at least as much >as one can while having the huge distraction of writing a book >in the meantime (an activity that, notwithstanding my long >experience of same, gets no easier over time) - I presume you >are not referring to me. If I may borrow your phrase below, my comment was not directed at you personally. >>The material I've seen thus far leads me to think that the best >>(if slim) hope for the hoax theory is with Bacellar as >>instigator, with Barauna as accomplice. Hence my question. >That seems reasonable. My comment was not directed at you >personally, but it expressed a general concern about some of >what I see on this List re Trindade. Namely, at least some of >the "investigation" seems directed less at uncovering the facts, >wherever they fall, than at proving a hoax; thus the necessity >for some (I don't mean you) of consistently inferring the very >worst about those whose testimony favors the case. Actually, I would concede that in benchmark cases such as this (and, e.g., the Kenneth Arnold sighting), I have a tendency to put the evidence bar _very_ high, and, yes, to generally assume the worst. These early classic cases are high-value targets, and I think a very conservative approach is called for. Here I sympathize with Sagan. My initial inclination was to dismiss Trindade outright, on the basis of nothing more than the Barauna's prior history, as one might similarly (if more immediately) dismiss the Maury Island case after learning about Fred Crisman. My position on Trindade is actually less logically consistent than, say, Kentaro Mori's, in that he is (apparently genuinely) convinced that he has reviewed/collected sufficient objective evidence to indicate a hoax, whereas I find his arguments and evidence unconvincing, but _nevertheless_ suspect a hoax. Unlike Kentaro, however, I find this conclusion becoming increasingly far-fetched, to the point where I no longer give serious consideration to the 'Barauna-as-lone-gunman' scenario. But after examination of the evidence in its broader context, it becomes clear that Barauna's photos are only the most visible component of a larger story, one in which Bacellar figures quite prominently. As such, I think early communication between Bacellar and Barauna would be significant indeed, and it is worthwhile to determine whether such was plausible (or even possible). 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 | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp