UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 9

Re: Trindade Material - Part III - Maccabee

From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:45:08 -0500
Fwd Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2003 14:32:09 -0500
Subject: Re: Trindade Material - Part III - Maccabee


>From: John Harney >magonia@harneyj.freeserve.co.uk>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>Date: Sat, 6 Dec 2003 19:42:18 -0000
>Subject: Re: Trindade Material - Part III

>>From: Richard Hall <hallrichard99@hotmail.com>
>>To: ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net
>>Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2003 16:10:19 +0000
>>Subject: Re: Trindade Material - Part III

>snip>

>>>The Navy's secret service interviewed 48 witnesses, including
>>>sailors, corporals, sergeants, three officers and admiral Paulo
>>>Moreira da Silva - the highest-rank officer among the militaries
>>>to have seen the UFO. In one of the meetings attended by
>>>Barauna, several photographs of UFOs were laid on a table,
>>>brought from other countries and belonging to the Navy's files.
>>>Among them, Barauna's shots had been included.

>>>The witnesses, including admiral Moreira da Silva, were asked to
>>>identify the craft that had been sighted over Trindade. Only one
>>>sailor misidentified the object, selecting a flying saucer that
>>>had been photographed by the Argentine Navy in Baia Blanca.>

>>>Within the premises, Barauna was able to verify the existence of
>>>a UFO photograph that had been taken by a sergeant. It had been
>>>registered by a slow-speed "box camera", and it was the first
>>>unidentified object seen over Trindade Island, a few months
>>>before the Almirante Saldanha's experience.

<snip>

I once had a physics professor who said something like, no
question is a stupid question., Well, strictly true: a question
is a question. But what about the mental ability of the person
who poses the question?

>However, I am informed that work on the photographs and the
>questions about witnesses (positive or negative) is continuing,
>so I'll be brief. Petit's account of what Barauna told him does
>not add anything except confusion.

It seems to me that the only real complaint Harney might have is
that, once again, only Baruna is the first-hand source of
information. Everything Baruna says is "hearsay". Harney's other
compaints about the testimony actually may increase the
liklihood that the story Baruna told is true.

>It seems incredible that when
>Barauna was trying to take his photos he was impeded by the
>sailors "frantically running about the ship's deck". Really! Was
>that the state of discipline in the Brazilian Navy in the 1950s?
>What a rabble, eh? Or is it possible that Barauna was grossly
>exaggerating for dramatic (or comic?) effect?

I suppose Harney has no understanding of the possible excitement
that could occur upon the realization that a really strange
object was flying by. Certainly sailors could have been running
about the deck and jostling for viewing position without regard
for someone trying to take pictures. And Baruna, one may
imagine, was trying to site through the lens apparatus and not
simply trying to avoid being bumped by sailors.

>Not only that, but when he has got his pictures, the captain
>orders him to develop the film, after he has finished "trembling
>all over", despite the fact that, in the disused laboratory the
>developing tank is broken and the developer and fixer are
>apparently well past their sell-by dates. So why was the captain
>apparently prepared to risk having the film ruined instead of
>having it developed ashore, as was presumably done with all
>other films taken on the voyage? Was he a bit simple, or
something?

This part of the story, although seemingly "illogical" (and
therefore made up?), could indicate that in the heat of the
moment the Captain wanted to know immediately what had happened.
I suppose the Baruna could have told that captain that there
were problems but that he thought he could develop the film with
what was available. We don't know, but I could imagine Baruna
trying first to develop some other picture to find out if the
chemicals were good enough.

>Meanwhile - to add to the element of farce - men were "waiting
>anxiously" and some were "carrying magnifying glasses" in the
>hope of examining the negatives. So it seems that, (if we
>believe the accounts) although Brazilian sailors of the period
>tended to panic when anything unusual happened, at least they
>didn't forget to carry their magnifying glasses with them at all
>times.

This appears as an exaggeration.... but the implication that
there were lots of men carrying magnifying glasses could be in
the mind of the reader and not what Baruna meant to imply. As
little as two men with magnifying glasses would be "men with
magnifying glasses"... and, of course, they could have passed
the glassses around to those who wanted to look. The main point
here seems consistent with the event: there were "men" who
wanted to see if the cameraman got pictures that agreed with
what they saw.


>And that's not all. When Barauna got the negatives to his
>private laboratory, he decided to experiment with an enhancement
>technique, so he "worked first with the least important
>negative, the one that shows the UFO at a longer distance". Why
>didn't he use one that didn't show the UFO at all, which would
>be even less important?

Who knows why he didn't? Does the fact that he claimed to have
tested the photo with the most distant image "prove" that he
faked the photos... (They were fakes so it wouldn't matter what
he did to them; but if they were fakes, why weren't they
perfect? And if they were fakes why did the Captain want to have
them developed on board? Was BAruna lucky enough to have faked
what supposedly many men saw fly past the ship?)