Back to: Trindade Case

Others to read:

Brazilian UFO Investigaton by Olavo T. Fontes

Brazil has opened its UFO files and released
Stunning Information

 

JEROME CLARK COMMENTS REGARDING TRINDADE CASE

Re: Magonia Supplement No 39 - Clark

From: Jerome Clark <jkclark@frontiernet.net>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 13:56:11 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2002 14:57:36 -0400
Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement No 39 - Clark


 >From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 10:51:21 -0400
 >Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement No 39

 >>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 23:46:44 +0100
 >>Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement No 39

 >>>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
 >>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 14:02:36 -0400
 >>>Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement No 39

 >>>>From: John Rimmer <jrimmer@magonia.demon.co.uk>
 >>>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>>>Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 21:03:00 +0100
 >>>>Subject: Re: Magonia Supplement No 39


John and Bruce,

 >>The Trinidade Island sighting of 16 January 1958 should provide
 >>a good case for consideration by ETH proponents. Four reasonably
 >>good photographs of a mysterious Saturn-shaped flying object
 >>taken from the deck of the Brazilian Navy vessel Almirante
 >>Saldanha and plenty of witnesses. Jerome Clark's verdict on it
 >>is:

 >>Given the number of witnesses, the results of photoanalyses both
 >>military and civilian, and the need for debunkers to reinvent
 >>the incident to explain it, it seems most unlikely that the
 >>Trinidade photographs were hoaxed. (6)

Sounds reasonable to me.

 >>Well, what are the agreed facts of this case? I was astonished
 >>to discover, on re-examining the literature on this incident
 >>that some of the most basic and presumably easily ascertainable
 >>facts are very much in dispute. For example, how many witnesses
 >>were there? Well, it depends on whether you are a believer or a
 >>sceptic. And if you are a sceptic it depends whether you believe
 >>the photographs were faked or that they are genuine and that
 >>they portray an aircraft or some natural phenomenon. Dr Menzel
 >>originally thought the photographs showed an aircraft flying
 >>through cloud, but eventually claimed that they were faked.

Not being a "believer," I think I'm qualified to comment here.

 >>Believers conveniently fail to mention something about the
 >>photographer that the sceptics gleefully emphasise: he was well
 >>known for his trick photography. I wonder why?

Not being one of those hated "believers," I mentioned this very
matter on page 902 of The UFO Encyclopedia, 2nd Ed. It turns out
that the charge that Barauna "has a long history of photographic
trick shots" is an unsupported charge made by a Blue Book
spokesman. Naturally, being pelicanists, the Magonians hastened
to fly with this one without further question.

Blue Book's charge was made on the basis of a single humorous
magazine article, in which Barauna debunked a famous Brazilian
flying-saucer photo. The piece is titled "A Flying Saucer Hunted
Me at Home." The "long history of photographic trick shots"
seems to be a Blue Book invention. But of course if a debunker
said it, it must be true. Note how Magonia's vaunted skepticism
suddenly fails it here.

 >>Sceptics insist that there were no witnesses, despite assertions
 >>from believers that their testimonies were published in
 >>Brazilian newspapers. If there really were many witnesses, then
 >>the photographs are hardly likely to be fakes. If there were no
 >>witnesses, it is difficult to see how people could be fooled by
 >>a photographer who purported to take pictures of something which
 >>nobody else noticed from the crowded deck of a ship.

Not being a "believer," I probably am not qualified to comment
on a doctrinal dispute between two churches, but are we to
believe now that Brazilian newspapers did _not_ interview other
witnesses? Is there some evidence to that effect?

 >True. But., how does all this nice reasoning point toward no
 >witnesses other than Baruna? If Baruna had hoaxed the whole
 >thing, a la Menzel (who never met an explanation he didn't
 >like), why would he think he could get away with claiming there
 >were dozens of other witnesses on deck at the time? Any one of
 >these purported witnesses could have sunk Baruna's ship by
 >saying, "hey, I was on deck and I didn't see it, and I don't
 >know of anyone else who did." Baruna would have been much more
 >successful in his (hypothetical) hoax if he had said he was the
 >only person on deck at the time or that it moved so quickly he
 >didn't have time to alert others to look, etc.

 >The mere fact that Baruna "dared" to claim that there were 
 >other witnesses, a claim not contradicted by other witnesses, 
 >is itself evidence that there were other witnesses. (J. Cohen 
4/14/2006: This link leads to my reply to Magonia ETH
Bulletin 01 and pertinent comments regarding that evidence.)

>Hmmmm... did any of these people say they didn't see it? This >sighting caused such a media flap in Brazil after the ship >returned that you would expect that these reputed witnesses >would have found out that Baruna was saying they were >witnesses... and they could have refuted him. Simple fact of the matter is that after all these years, not a single witness has stepped forward to contradict Barauna's testimony. Remarkable when one considers that anyone who did so could probably claim a nice financial reward from a paper or TV outlet looking for ratings by deep-sixing what is surely the most celebrated of all Brazilian UFO cases, and one of the most famous (and most often reproduced) photos of an ostensible UFO. It is also, of course, startling that the Brazilian Navy was unable to disprove the case easily, simply by debunking the claim that there were other witnesses. The Brazilian Navy, however, said no such thing. Its investigation left it puzzled. It could only say that it could not identify the object in the photograph. It did not deny that a sighting had occurred or that something strange had been photographed in the course of that sighting - though Menzel fiddled with the translation from Portuguese into English to make it appear, falsely, that this was the case.(J. Cohen 3/13/2006: Previous link inserted by me.
It demonstrates yet another erroneous UFO explanation by Menzel.)
It should have been child's play to disprove a sighting with photographs if the photographer had falsely claimed the passage of a huge unknown and the presence of other witnesses. All those other claimed "witnesses" allegedly on deck would have had to do was tell investigators that they had been there and seen nothing. And why would Barauna have risked being debunked by claiming witnesses who could easily have devastatingly undermined his testimony? Wouldn't it have made more sense to do it alone or in the company of one or two trusted associates, away from prying eyes and contrary testimony? If the Brazilian Navy was fooled by such a simply disposed-of hoax - one that would have collapsed after a few questions asked of the right people - I worry for the national security of Brazil. Of course, we here in North America and - even worse - England are far from the events in question. Perhaps Brazilian members of the list can weigh in here with whatever potentially illuminating information they may have that is not available to the rest of us. In the meantime, it strikes me that the Magonians, as usual, are rushing to a conclusion of convenience. Jerry Clark - - - - - - - - 4/15/2006 Jerry Cohen: Additional data concerning the Trindade
case was discovered by audio and photo materials preservationist and archivist Wendy Conners in 2002 as she was dubbing a 1982 interview between J. Allen Hynek and Almiro Barauna. (Located at the NICAP
website)
Also located at the NICAP website is an entire investigation from Olavo T. Fontes, MD, APRO Brazilian representative who spent 100's of hours investigating the case when it occurred back in 1958.
(click HERE if not available.)
11/1/2006: For those people who think this whole thing is totally impossible . . . in 2005, the Brazilian Air Force opened it's UFO
files
to the public. The article in the immediately previous URL is both confirmation of same and a stunner. What the Brazilian A.F. has admitted appears to confirm some UFO cases previously brought back from Brazil and reported by journalist Bob Pratt. They are so spooky and well-detailed I can't post them here in their entirety. Those with strong hearts, go see his web-site. (search criteria: bob pratt mufon)

Back to: Trindade Case