UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2003 > Dec > Dec 11

Re: Trindade Material - Part III - Harney

From: John Harney <magonia@harneyj.freeserve.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:07:13 -0000
Fwd Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2003 12:27:37 -0500
Subject: Re: Trindade Material - Part III - Harney


>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac@compuserve.com>
>Date: Mon, 8 Dec 2003 15:45:08 -0500
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
>Subject: Re: Trindade Material - Part III

>>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

>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.

So at least the fact that nearly all of the testimony about
Trindade comes indirectly from Barauna is acknowlefged to be a
"real complaint". It's at least a start on the way to a sensible
evaluation of the case. It's rather puzzling, though, that
implausible details in Barauna's testimony should be taken to
indicate that his story is true.

So here is another odd detail. Barauna was lying down on the
deck because he wasn't feeling well. In some accounts he was
feeling seasick because the sea was choppy. In Petit's version
his attention was called to the UFO, so he set up his _tripod_
and camera. Really! Now, I've taken photographs at sea, and
watched others taking photographs at sea, and I've never
encountered anyone attempting to use a tripod. Certainly, on
firm, dry land, they are necessary for taking landscapes or
portraits where slow shutter speeds are used. But on a ship?
Surely, he was having one of his little jokes at Petit's
expense. It's a bit like saying that the crew played snooker in
their off-duty periods.

>>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.

Look, this was not a cruise liner - it was a Brazilian Navy
_training_ship_. Sailing ships (with auxiliary engines) like the
Almirante Saldanha are also used by other navies. They are used
to train young recruits in seamanship and _discipline_, so that
they can cope with any emergencies they are likely to encounter
at sea. An obvious emergency, for a naval vessel, would be the
appearance of an unidentified and possibly hostile aircraft. Yet,
when this happens the men on the deck of the Almirante Saldanha
just panic (if we believe Barauna). This is not a trivial matter;
it must be clarified if we are to take the story seriously.

>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.

Captains are not paid to make irrational decisions "in the heat
of the moment", they are supposed to make logical and sensible
decisions, and the Captain had plenty of time to decide what to
do about the photos.

>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.

Why should we imagine anything? Anyway, eveloping important
pictures in a faulty developing tank with outdated chemicals is
a stupid thing to do (if it really happened as described).

>>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.

Why didn't the Captain, or one of the officers tell the men to
make drawings of what they saw? These could have been filed away
and later compared with the photographs when they were eventually
developed. Or would that have been too simple?

>>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?)

What was this "enhancement technique" for negatives anyway? I
haven't been able to find any reference to it. And why was
Barauna apparently allowed to take the negatives to his
laboratory before they could be examined by Navy photographic
experts? Barauna also refers to the Navy using "a technical
process that can generate a three-dimensional image, which
enabled them to determine how far the saucer was at the time it
was photographed" (according to Petit). Wow! I'll bet Brad
Sparks would like to obtain full details of this technique for
his work on these photos.


John Harney