Well since you guys/girs want some cases let's take a look at the Traindade Case:
Here's a prime example of voodo science by a great "scientist that was excepted by the world as fact. Bare with me here because not only does misquote so the evidence is a lie. But he tell a lie about the number of witnesses and changes his explanation to suit the circumstance. You know the debunkers name by heart good old Menzel.
A hoax?
On November 27, 1959, Donald H. Menzel, a Harvard University astronomer and UFO debunker, wrote Richard Hall of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena to report his "tentative conclusion" concerning the object in the Trindade photograph:
I have in my possession one well-authenticated case of a saturn-like object, whose nature is known and clearly distinguishable in this particular instance. A plane, flying in a humid but apparently super-cooled atmosphere, became completely enveloped in fog, so about all one could see was a division where the stream lines were flowing up and down respectively over and under the wings. The cabin made a saturn-like spot in the center, and the wings closely resembled the appearance of the Brazilian photographs.
The Trindade object’s speed and sprightly maneuvers were explainable, Menzel claimed, as an illusion created by the reflection of sunlight on the plane.
But four years later, in The World of Flying Saucers, Menzel publicly declared the case a hoax, charging that Barauna had faked the photographs via double exposure in collusion with an associate (Menzel and Boyd, 1963). He wrote, without mentioning newspaper articles and official reports to the contrary, that when reporters had a "chance to interview the officers and crewmen who allegedly had observed the Trindade saucer and could support Barauna’s story... [n]one of them had actually seen the object." In fact, in 1959 Hall had provided Menzel with a translation of a March 8, 1958, O Cruzeiro article which names several of the witnesses (Hall, 1959).
Menzel reprints a Brazilian Navy press release, but when the original and Menzel’s version are compared, some significant discrepancies become apparent. In the latter three words are added and six left out.
The original reads: "Evidently, this Ministry cannot make any statement about the object sighted over the island of Trindade, for the photographs do not constitute enough evidence for such a purpose." Menzel renders it thus: "Clearly, this Ministry cannot make any statement about the reality of the object, for the photos do not constitute enough evidence for such a purpose." Whereas the first statement acknowledges an object and a sighting, the second implies that their reality is open to question — hardly the Brazilian Navy’s intention.
Menzel’s attack continues in his next book, The UFO Emgma, wherein — though citing no source — he outlines the "extremely simple" method that he claimed was used to fake the photographs. "In the privacy of his home," Menzel writes, "the photographer had snapped a series of pictures of a model UFO against a black background. He then reloaded the camera with the same film and took pictures of the scenery in the ordinary fashion. When the film was developed, there was the saucer hanging in the sky." Menzel seems to have woven this story out of whole cloth. He also repeats the unfounded allegation that "no one else, except a friend (and presumed accomplice), had seen the disk flying overhead" (Menzel and Taves, 1977).
Though the U.S. Navy, which had expressed interest in the case at the time of its occurrence (Fontes, op. cit.), refused public comment, in a 1963 letter Maj. Carl R. Hart of the U.S. Air Force’s Project Blue Book quoted from an Office of Naval Intelligence report: "This gentleman [Barauna] has a long history of photographic trick shots. . . . [He prepared a purposely humorous article, published in a magazine, entitled ‘A Flying Saucer Hunted Me at Home’, using trick photography" (Hart, 1963). It should be noted that the article was a debunking piece intended to show how a much-publicized 1952 Brazilian flying-saucer photograph was created (Smith, op. cit.).
In 1978 an Arizona-based group, Ground Saucer Watch (GSW), which specialized in analysis of purported UFO photographs (and which had rejected most as phony), subjected good-quality prints to a computer-processing technique, focusing on edge enhancement, color-contouring, picture-cell distortion, and digitizing. GSW’s specialists came to these conclusions:
The UFO image is over 50 feet in diameter. The UFO image in each case reveals a vast distance from the photographer/camera. The photographs show no signs of hoax (i.e., a hand-thrown or suspended model). The UFO image is reflecting light and passed all computer tests for an image with substance. The image represents no known type of aircraft or experimental balloon. Digital densitometry reveals a metallic reflection. We are of the unanimous opinion that the Brazilian photos are authentic and represent an extraordinary flying object of unknown origin [Hewes, 1979].
Given the number of witnesses, the results of photoanalyses both military and civilian (Hopf, 1960), and the need for debunkers to reinvent the incident to "explain" it, it seems most unlikely that the Trindade photographs were hoaxed.
Sources:
Fontes, Olavo T. "The UAO Sightings at the Island of Trindade." The A.P.R.O. Bulletin Pt. I (January 1960): 5-9; Pt. II (March 1960): 5-8; Pt. III (May 1960): 4-8.
Hall, Richard H. Letter to Donald H. Menzel (November 2,1959). Hall, Richard H., ed. The UFO Evidence. Washington, DC: National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena, 1964.
Hart, Carl R. Letter to Richard H. Hall (January 24, 1963).
Hewes, Hayden. "The Mystery Disk over Trindade Island." UFO Report 7,1 (February 1979): 18-19,58.
Hopf, John T. "Exclusive IGY Photo Analysis." The A.P.R.0. Bulletin (May 1960): 1,4.
"IGY Team Snaps UFO." The A.P.R.O. Bulletin (March 1958): 1,6.
Lorenzen, Coral E. The Great Flying Saucer Hoax: The UFO Facts and Their Interpretation. New York: William-Frederick Press, 1962. Revised edition as Flying Saucers: The Startling Evidence of the Invasion from Outer Space. New York: New American Library, 1966.
"Brazilian Official Report on the Trindade UFO." Fate 18,3 (March 1965): 38-48.
Menzel, Donald H. Letter to Richard H. Hall (November 27, 1959). Menzel, Donald H., and Lyle G. Boyd. The World of Flying Saucers:A Scientific Examination of a Major Myth of the Space Age.Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1963.
Menzel, Donald H., and Ernest H. Taves. The UFO Enigma: The Definitive Explanation of the UFO Phenomenon. Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company, 1977.
"New Evidence on IGY Photos." The A.P.R..0. Bulletin (January 1965): 1,3-8.
Smith, Willy. "Trindade Revisited." International UFO Reporter 8,4 (July/August 1983): 3-5,14.
"UFOs in Latin America." In Hilary Evans with John Spencer, eds. UFOs 1947-1987: The 40-Year Search for an Explanation, 97-113. London: Fortean Tomes, 1987.
"UFO Photo Certified by Brazilian Navy Labeled a Hoax by USAF." The UF0 Investigator 1,10 (July/August 1960): 3.
* By permission of the author. Clark, J. "Trindade Island Photographs." The UFO Encyclopedia: The phenomenon from the beginning (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 898-903). Detroit, MI: Omnigraphics, Inc. 1998
Now for the definitive answer. Correspondence show to the US
Now for what I call real science:
THE NAVY MINISTRY
THE NAVY HIGH COMMAND
INTELLIGENCE DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT
I. Report about the observation of unidentified aerial objects, occurring in the Trindade Island, in the period between 12-5-57 and 1-16-58.
OCCURRENCES
1. The Corvette Captain Carlos Alberto Ferreira Bacellar, Commander of the Trindade Island Oceanographic Post, was called to this High Command, on January 27, 1958, where his Report was presented. He informed the following:
I. On December 31, 1957, an unidentified aerial object (UAO) was observed over the Island, sighted by the Medical-Officer, First-Lieutenant MD Ignaclo Carlos Moreira Murta, by one sailor and five workers. The sighting occurred in the morning about 10’ before 0800 hours. Due to the conviction of the observers and the coherence and correlation of the reports, he had decided to send the radiogram that gave origin to the present investigation;
II—He was informed at the same occasion that identical object had been sighted previously, on December 5, 1957, by one worker, also in the morning and at the same hour;
Ill—On the following day, January 1, 1958, at the same hour and position, and moving to the North (the same direction of the previous sightings), something appeared over the sea flying at incredible speed. Despite the opposite opinion of other observers and despite the brightness presented by the object in a certain part of its trajectory, he concluded and still believes that it was a sea-gull—was projected against the sky, making difficult any stereoscopic estimation;
IV—Next day, January 2, 1958, a new alarm was given—this time at night, about 2000 hours. This alarm was dismissed because he was on watch himself and saw nothing;
V—Finally, on January 16, 1958, at 1215 hours, another UAO alarm was registered aboard the NE "Almirante Saldanha," which was anchored close to the Island. The ship was preparing to depart and the crew was in the operation of taking aboard the boat used in the trips to the Island. The UAO alarm was given by members of the crew in the stern and bow of the ship;
VI—On that same occasion, a professional photographer, civilian, who was on the deck, at the ship’s stern photographing the operation to take aboard the boat, was alerted and had the opportunity to take the four photographs enclosed;
VII—After the sighting, the photographer took out the film from the camera in the presence of CC Bacellar and other officers; later, together with CC Bacellar, he went to the ship’s photo-lab dressed only in a shirt and shorts; the processing lasted about 10 minutes and then the negatives were examined by CC Bacellar; CC Bacellar states that he saw the UAO referred to in the negatives mentioned since that first examination with details which only the enlargements made afterwards showed more clearly;
VIII—Afterwards, the negatives referred to were shown to members of the ship’s crew who had witnessed the phenomenon; they recognized the object appearing in the photos as identical with the one they had sighted in the air;
IX—The person who called the attention of the photographer to the object was an AF Captain (ret.) who was on the ship as a member of a group specialized in submarine hunting; the photographer was also a member of the same group;
X—The photographs were taken in no more than 30 seconds;
XI—A strong emotional upset was observed in all persons who sighted the object, including the photographer, civilians and members of the ship’s crew.
2. CC Bacellar also reported a phenomenon he had personally observed, over the Island, for two times in different occasions, with the help of a high-precision theodolite and at daylight. His second observation was the following:
I—He was tracking a weather balloon when came the indication that its instruments had been dropped, the drop clearly recognized by the signals emitted from its radio-sonde and by the line traced on the registrar;
II—The balloon should burst after the drop referred to, because the medium lifetime of a balloon is forty minutes, after this time the balloon burst due to the high altitude reached;
III--THE balloon being tracked was covered, at an altitude of 14,000 meters, when the instruments were parachuted. A few moments later, he spotted an object in the sky about 30 degrees in the horizontal of the point where the balloon had disappeared when passing behind a cloud;
IV—Sighted through a theodolite, the object presented a strange shape, like a halfmoon, with a bright light; the phenomenon lasted for three and a half hours, and the object was apparently moving with the same angular velocity as the sun.
V—The object disappeared only when the sky became full of cirrus clouds;
VI—He finds no explanation for the sighting, considering the life-time of the balloon being tracked painted red, the shape and brightness of the object, the position of the moon and planets.
VII—This sighting was witnessed by the Medical-Officer, several Navy sergeants and sailors, and a civilian technician from the Navy’s Hydrography and Navigation Department.
3. Finally, the CC Bacellar brought to this High Command the man who had taken the photographs, the professional photographer Almiro Barauna (Address: Praia de Icarai 251, Apt. 1004, Niteroi), who made the following report:
I—He was on the deck of the "NE Almirante Saldanha" when he was called to see a strange object which was approaching the Island; he was able to see it after a few moments of observation;
II—Immediately after sighting it, he directed his camera toward the object, taking six successive photographs;
III—Afterwards, as he had shot the last photo on the film, he took out the film from the camera and remained for almost one hour with it in his hands— waiting the passing of a strong emotional disturbance he was feeling; then he went to the dark room to develop the exposed film, already escorted by the CC Bacellar.
IV—He remained in the darkroom for about 10 minutes, accompanied by the AF Captain, who was helping him; then he showed the film still wet to the CC Bacellar, with the impression that the object photographed had not appeared on the developed film; however, his impression was changed by CC Bacellar himself who showed him that, in the pictures connected with the sighting, was visible, in different positions, an image looking like the object;
V—He kept the negatives and brought them to Rio where, in his photolab, he made several enlargements; the UAO appeared well only in two pictures because the other negatives were very dark;
VI—In order to increase the contrast, he made an operation known as "clearing", which consists in clearing homogeneously the whole negative; however, as in two pictures the UAO appeared with great clarity and he was in fear of losing them if the process failed, he cut the film and submitted to the process only the four other negatives; as a result the UAO appeared with great clarity in two of them, in different positions;
VII—He said that, seeing the UAO at naked-eye, his impression was that of a solid body, with ill-defined contours, showing great mobility at high speed, and with a dark colour difficult to define because the object seemed to be enveloped by a substance he compared to soap foam; it seemed to have a small contrail of the same material and was moving without any sound;
VIII—He got so nervous and upset after the sighting that he found it difficult to perform the routine task of developing the film;
IX—He offered the negatives to this High Command and for all the examinations and analyses necessary to prove their authenticity and suggested a microscopic examination as the only way good enough to detect any trick.
Summary
2. Summarizing the declarations obtained, according to the reports transcribed above, we have the following important facts;
a) Observed over the Trindade Island by different people the appearance of UAOs four times, in different days, three in the morning and one at night;
b.) Observed, by CC Bacellar and others, in the morning, one time, something he believed to be a sea-gull, despite the fact that sergeants and sailors also witnessing the sighting still think it was a UAO;
c.) Observed for two times, over the Trindade Island, by its own Military-Commander, a Superior Officer of the Navy Corps, a Hydrographer experienced in meteorology and radio-sonde operations—and by other witnesses—a phenomenon not explainable on the basis of atmospheric or astronomical conditions;
d.) Obtained, from the deck of the NE "Almirante Saldanha", when anchored close to the Trindade Island four photographs of a UAO, taken by a professional photographer in the presence of other witnesses who state they have sighted the object photographed.
ANALYSIS
3. The evaluation of the facts listed in the previous item shows:
a.) That in five UAO sightings four were made at daylight and one at night;
b.) That in five UAO observations the CC Bacellar was a witness in one case only, which was explained away as a sea-gull;
c.) That the witnesses who sighted the UAOs were persons with different qualifications—workers, medical officers, dentists, sailors and sergeants, officers, civilians and professional photographer;
d.) That no officer from the Navy Corps sighted the phenomena registered, with the exception of the two incidents reported by CC Bacellar;
e.) That in all incidents it was noticed a very strong emotional reaction in all people who sighted UAOs, including the professional photographer. There was even a case involving a worker, a man considered to be normal, who ran away frightened;
f.) That the reports, despite the great difficulty in obtaining good information from people with little culture, agreed on the following data:
SHAPE—The classical disc and a tear-shaped object. One object, (seen from below) according to the observers, when it crossed over the Island on 12/31/57, showed a spherical outline. Sighted from a distant point, it was disc-shaped with a double dome (Saturn-shaped);
COLOR — undefined for some, like stainless steel for others; many described it as enveloped by a kind of mist;
SOUND—All observers said the objects were noiseless;
CONTRAIL—Some observers noticed a discharge, shaped as a white trail; others denied anything of the kind;
SIZE—All observers agreed that the objects were moving at very high speed, but no one was able to make estimations;
MOBILITY—All the reports called attention to the extreme mobility of the UAOs. The movements were not continuous like those of an airplane, but more rapid and abrupt, with sudden changes of course and speed;
ALTITUDE AND DISTANCE — Only the observers of the sighting on 12/31/57 when the UAO was seen passing over the Island, estimated its altitude, comparing it with the height of the peak "Desejado", i. e., about three times that height, or about 1,800 meters;
MANEUVERS—All the reports agreed on the fact that the objects performed very unusual maneuvers;
APPEARANCE—That of a solid body in all cases;
TIME OF OBSERVATIONS — Very short, estimated always in seconds;
g.) That the observers who sighted the UAOs know perfectly how to identify airplanes; all planes over the Island have been properly identified in all cases, with communications being reported to the Hydrography and Navigation Department;
h.) That—considering the circumstances in which the photos were taken, followed by immediate developing of the film, the conditions in which it was done and the emotional state of the photographer—everything indicates that no photo-montage was done at the locale;
i.) Concerning the photographic proof, evidently the more valuable and important, remain as:
NEGATIVE POINTS
I—No prints of the film were made at the moment it was developed;
II—The ship’s Commander didn’t take possession of the negatives, after developed, in order to get the prints made later in the presence of witnesses;
III—The making of prints and enlargements was done by the photographer in his own photolab.
POSITIVE POINTS:
I—The report of the CC Bacellar, who saw in the film immediately after it was developed, still wet, the images he identified in the prints as the object photographed, and also that the pictures preceding the sequence connected with the object’s passage corresponded with scenes taken aboard a few minutes before the incident;
II—The statements of the persons who sighted the object: they saw the copies of the photographs and declared they had seen exactly what appears on the photographs.
j.) Concerning the negatives, they were submitted to examination by the Hydrography and Navigation Department’s technicians and by technicians from the Cruzeiro do Sul erophotgrammetric Service, with the following results:
I—The technician from the Navy’s HND, after examination of the negatives, affirms that they are natural;
II—The technicians from the Cruzeiro do Sul Aerophotogrammetric Service, after microscopic examinations to verify the granulation, analysis of signals, verification of luminosity and details of outlines, affirmed:
There was not any sign of photomontage in the negatives mentioned to, all the evidence indicating they are in fact negatives of an object really photographed;
The hypothesis of a photomontage contrived after the sighting is definitely excluded;
It is impossible to prove either the existence or the nonexistence of a previous photomontage, which requires however a high-precision technic and favorable circumstances to its execution.
CONCLUSIONS
4. Considering the presentation of the facts and the summary analysis made, reported in the previous item, it can be concluded:
a.) That there are a number of witnesses who stated they have sighted UAOs over the Trindade Island. Such witnesses have different qualifications and the observations were made in different days;
b.) That most reports presented are insufficient, mostly due to the lack of technical skill of many observers and to the brief duration of the phenomena observed, so that no conclusion can be reached concerning positive data about the UAOs;
c.) That the most important and valuable evidence presented, the photographic, somehow loses its convincing quality due to the impossibility to prove a previous photomontage;
d.) That the emotional reaction of the persons who have reported the sighting of UAOs is very strong and easily noticed;
e.) That, finally the existence of personal reports and of photographic evidence, of certain value considering the circumstance involved, permit the admission that there are indications of the existence of unidentified aerial objects.
5. The last conclusion listed above permits me to suggest to Your Excellency that this High Command must take in consideration all the information to be obtained about the present subject in order to be able to reach conclusions beyond any doubt.
Jose Geraldo Brandao,
Corvette-Captain, Intelligence Service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion
The first item on the agenda in this discussion must of necessity be the matter of Dr. Menzel’s inference that no one but Mr. Barauna and his friends Jose Toebaldo Viegas, instructor at the Aero Club of Niteroi and Air Force Captain (retired) and Amilar Vieira Fliho, captain of the submarine hunting team of which Barauna was a member saw the object. Fliho was also a government employee. (See "The World of Flying Saucers"—by Menzel and Boyd, Doubleday).
As the Bulletin has pointed out before, had Menzel fully investigated the Trindade incident and photos he could not have concluded that the sighting and the photos were a hoax perpetrated by Barauna and his friends.
The last document presented above, clearly states that (see Paragraph VIII under OCCURRENCES "Afterwards, after they were developed, the negatives referred to were shown to members of the ship’s crew who had witnessed the phenomenon; they recognized the object appearing in the photographs as identical with the one they had sighted in the air."
On this same point, see also Paragraph XI: "A strong emotional upset was observed in all persons who sighted the object, including the photographer (Barauna), civilians (his friends Viegas and Vieira) and members of the ship’s crew."
Let us further emphasize a few other points: Barauna went into that darkroom with only shorts and a T-shirt on his body. No place to conceal extra film, or paraphernalia with which to aid in making a composite etc. He was there only 10 minutes, hardly enough time to doctor a roll of film. Barauna had been afraid that he had not got the photos because he had no time to make adjustments for exposure, etc. He exhibited considerable anxiety and nervousness prior to the development of the negatives, and that is certainly understandable.
Note that some of the exposures were not clear and that Barauna attempted to remedy that condition (See 3-V, VI)
The reader will note the numerical order of the paragraphs in the Navy report are not consistent, and it is felt that this was due merely to a mistake in copying by the man who forwarded them to APRO. It is a long report and it is understandable that a mistake like this could be made.
The paragraph labeled No. 2, immediately preceding the Analysis is most important for it summarizes what Corvette-Captain Jose Geraldo Brandao, Intelligence Service, felt were important FACTS which he prepared to be sent to the NAVY MINISTER under the name of Fleet-Admiral Antonio Maria de Carvalho, Chief of the Navy High Command. Admiral Carvalho would have had to see the report and to approve of it before it was sent on to the Navy Minister.
The Navy Minister at that time was Admiral Alves Camera. On 24 February, 1958, he told United Press: "that he didn’t believe in flying saucers before, but after Barauna’s photographic evidence he was convinced." Camera had been stopped by newsmen on the steps of the Rio Negro palace at Petropolis after his weekly meeting with the President of Brazil. He also said that "the Navy has a big secret which cannot be released, because it cannot be explained."
To refer back again to the authenticity of the pictures, we must consider the possibility of a photomontage. (See j-II under POSITIVE POINTS,) Inasmuch as witnesses had already observed the object and subsequently the negatives showing the object, it is not likely that Barauna would have gone to the trouble to attempt another and better photo by trickery. The Navy’s HND technician affirmed that the negatives were natural.
There is but one avenue left, and that is the possibility that Barauna performed a photomontage prior to the Trindade excitement. But then we must assume that he was able to "mock-up" a model UFO, position it on film, and then photograph the Trindade Island skyline over it. But that is not a montage—it is simply a double-exposure, and how did he know what would be seen and testified to later by the people on deck of the Almirante Saldanha? A photomontage would be a combination of two photos, and how would he know what was to be seen? And how did he substitute this hypothetical film? Even if he did make it up ahead of time? And how did he know just exactly how the object would be positioned so that his pictures would coincide with what was seen?
To even suggest that Barauna performed either a photomontage or a double exposure is to hypothesize such a number of coincidences as to label the possibility mathematically impossible.
In conclusion, we must call attention to a few pertinent facts. It has been suggested that Dr. Menzel is in the employ of the United States Air Force. If he is in the employ of anyone, it would have to be another agency. But the Doctor’s behavior indicates that his attitude is a matter of personal preference. Scientists have ethics—if they are true scientists. There are scientists whose job it is to explain away the "ticklish" cases, but in no case have they exhibited a tendency to directly attack the veracity of an adult individual capable of legal action in defense of their good names.
Dr. Menzel has an impressive string of degrees behind his name, and they, of course, help to impress the general public with the truth and accuracy of his conclusions. They do not, however, to the discerning scientist or layman, excuse him from apparent deliberate disregard of facts or the altering of official foreign military public releases to suit his own theories. The latter refers to his version of the Brazilian Navy statement concerning the IGY photos which was included in his book and which included some words not in the text and excluded others. (See Page 2, APRO Bulletin, Sept. 1963).
There possibly will be criticism of the foregoing listed documents, whether verbal and somewhat furtive, or printed, but the criticism if it comes, will probably be a result of resentment for APRO for having backed the IGY photo case with real documents, or a belated attempt to bolstered unrealistic arguments against the authenticity of the Trindade case.
*"New Evidence on IGY Photos." The A.P.R..0. Bulletin (January 1965): 1,3-8.
Notice folks facts not bull sh*t facts. You know real science or have we fogot about that here.
rif
