UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 1

Re: Mag 1/4 -- Comments on Trindade Isl. 1/2

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 1998 14:24:12 -0400
Fwd Date: Wed, 01 Jul 1998 09:02:20 -0400
Subject: Re: Mag 1/4 -- Comments on Trindade Isl. 1/2

>From: The Duke of Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter
>Date: Fri, 26 Jun 1998 22:53:23 -0400
>Fwd Date: Sat, 27 Jun 1998 10:53:47 -0400
>Subject: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin #4

>>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@li.net>
>>Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 22:48:21 -0400
>>Fwd Date: Mon, 18 May 1998 10:11:25 -0400
>>Subject: Re: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin 01

>>>From: Mendoza <101653.2205@compuserve.com> [Peter Brookesmith]
>>>Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 17:43:46 -0400
>>>Fwd Date: Sun, 17 May 1998 11:29:27 -0400
>>>Subject: MAGONIA ETH Bulletin 01
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Greetings Peter & list members,

It is hoped the following regarding the Almirante Saldanha UFO
sighting off Trindade Island is in keeping with Bruce Maccabee's
sentiments regarding decreasing philosophical discussion and
rather, digging in and getting to the nitty-gritty within
various cases.

It's a little long, so I had to split it into two parts. The
second part has some important URLs. In responding to it, it may
be best to assemble it on the other end. You can access the Blue
Book Report easier that way.

Everything I've ever read concerning this case has suggested it
was a "no-win" for either side. However, there appears to be
enough supporting evidence which tends to suggest it should not
be simply dismissed by mere whim. The date I have associated with
the Trindade IGY case is January 16, 1958.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JC: Peter, re a portion of the MAGONIA ETH Bulletin #4 you
posted (for John Harney?):


>ETH enthusiasts are equally reluctant to write off the
>Trindade Isle photographs, despite the fact that they were
>taken by a man with a reputation as a trick photographer and
>the fact that the statements of the numerous other alleged
>witnesses to the sighting remain suspiciously unavailable.

JC: O.K., however, you've posted this MAGONIA Bulletin in its
entirety but you haven't made any comments on my response to your
posting of MAGONIA Bulletin #1. My post attempted to point out
some of the reasons "open-minded researchers" are reluctant to
write off the Trindade Isle photos.



>>JC: Please forgive my interjection, I believe that island is
JC: It is possible the author of the MAGONIA article may not
have been thinking about the correct island. (Since he repeatedly
misspelled it this way.) But it is an easy mistake to make.

Please note, "MAGONIA ETH Bulletin 01" will be abbreviated to

M's author (?John Harney - editor) says:

>>>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.

JC: To me, an even more important question might be; "Exactly
how many witnesses do we need on a  Brazilian Navy IGY survey
ship for this particular case to merit serious attention?"

Interestingly, we do know that the Brazilian Naval Ministry
finally did issue the following statement (even though they
couldn't confirm or deny an actual craft from the photographs):

 The Ministry has no motive to impede the release of
 photographs of the referred to object taken by _______ who was
 at Trindade Island at the invitation of the Navy, and in the
 presence of a large number of the crew of ALMIRANTE SALDANHA
 from whose deck the photographs were taken.

JC: A question that comes to mind is; "Would they say a lot of
people were present to see it without really checking it
through." Your guess is as good as mine. The reputation of the
Brazilian Naval Ministry was at stake.

Regarding the witness question, M's author says...

>>>Now we come to the really crazy bit. When we ask the obvious
>>>question: How many witnesses were there? ....snip....
>>>According to Coral Lorenzen: Rio de Janeiro's Ultima Hora on
>>>February 21 reported that at least a hundred individuals had
>>>witnessed the sighting of the object ...

JC: Until I personally see the actual article in question, and
supporting articles or reports in other papers, etc., this
researcher is willing to assume for the moment that Lorenzen's
"hundred witnesses " may deserve some scrutiny.

 However, M's author also stated and I commented...

>>>(7) The US Naval Attachi in Rio de
>>>Janeiro, evidently a dedicated sceptic, wrote the following
>>>facts in his report to Project Blue Book:

>>>The Assistant Naval Attachi ... had an opportunity to visit
>>>aboard [the Almirante Saldanha]. The commanding officer ...
>>>had not seen the object and was noncommittal. The executive
>>>officer also had not seen it but, arriving shortly thereafter,
>>>had formed the opinion that those on deck had seen it.

>>JC: and why would the executive officer do this unless the
people had?

JC: These statements appear to be accurate since they were
entered into the Project Blue Book report by, as M's author
states, an admitted "dedicated" skeptic, who collected the
statements personally. Unfortunately, this presents a problem as
we shall see in a few moments. (URL for the report is located at
the end of part 2 of this essay "Mag 1/4__Comments on Trindade

>>>The captain reported
>>>that his secretary, a LCDR, had seen it but this officer when
>>>personally questioned avoided discussing the matter. (8)

JC: Again, in this instance, why would the captain say this? Why
would anyone put their own reputation in jeopardy on something
like this, unless they really knew this? Does this make sense to

I had said:

>>JC: Well, say we ignore the newspaper (J.C. meaning "for the
>>moment") and focus on the US Naval "Attachi," the Captain and
his secretary.

>>The Captain says he (his secretary) saw it. If his secretary
>>didn't see it, all he (the secretary) had to say was "I didn't
>>see it." Would _you_ refuse to tell someone if you _didn't_ see
>>it? ....snip....

JC: Peter or anyone else again, any comments on this last
paragraph? I can't imagine why anyone would refuse to tell
someone if they didn't see it. Does it sound like the secretary
really didn't see it, or does it sound more likely as though he
was avoiding discussing the matter because he didn't want to
look like a fool under questioning, especially to a "dedicated
skeptic," who demonstrated his strong bias in comments he made
in the report he sent to Project Blue Book. Incidentally, some
of Dr. Condon's comments years later had a similar ring to them.

>>>Sceptics insist that there were no witnesses, despite
>>>assertions from believers that their testimonies were
>>>published in Brazilian newspapers.
JC: After what we've examined so far, are we really so sure
there weren't _any_ witnesses or is it just possible that there
were at least _some_ witnesses? I'll concede we still do not know
exactly how many by what we've discussed so far.

Then I asked, regarding the testimonies...

>>JC: So, were they published or not? Is there any record for
>>that date or didn't they keep microfilm accounts of the papers
>>there back then?

JC: Has anyone, skeptics, believers, whomever checked this out?
Obviously, it wouldn't be easy if one didn't live there.  Taking
a long shot, are there any people from Trindade Isle on this
mailing list that would like to comment here?

Sans response, one would either have to call Trindade's local
library, research an Email address, or purchase a ticket to
visit the island. Of course one would need to know for certain
there were existing microfilms of the papers before one could
even begin thinking about going. I can just hear what my wife
would have to say about a trip like that.  :-)  Obviously this
may well have been a stumbling block for most researchers
concerning further investigation of this case. We weren't all
NET conscious back then.

Interestingly, we do know the following from the Blue Book

 "Federal Deputy Sergio Magalhaws sent a note to the Navy
 Ministry on 27 February protesting the Navy's failure to
 secure sworn statements of witness.

 'For the first time in flying saucer history, the phenomenon
 was attended by large numbers of persons belonging to a
 military force which give these latest photographs an official
 stamp. Threats to national security require official attention
 and action,' said the Deputy."

JC: Does anyone besides myself get the idea from that last
sentence the possibility higher officials may have put a clamp
on this whole thing even though the Assistant Naval Attachi
didn't think so.

 "In the middle of all the publicity, other 'flying saucer'
 sighting reports came out including a naval officer who saw a
 flying saucer a month before sighting from SALDANHA off the
 coast of Espirito Santo. CO and crew of ATA TRIDENTE said
 flying saucer several days before SALDANHA sighting but kept
 information secret."

JC: And are we to totally ignore this? I wonder if anyone ever
took statements from those crew members as well.

  Continued in "Mag 1/4__Comments on Trindade Isl.2"

Part 1 respectfully submitted by,
Jerry Cohen

 Author: Oberg/Cooper rebuttals
Website: http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/
UFOmind: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/c/cohen/