Project Blue Book file: Trinidade Island, 16 Jan 1958

ROB MERCERComments:
a) No record of anyone "seeing" the objects.
b) Fhotos hazy ,r.!.th no detail.
c) Der>.ied by Brazilian NaVtJ. Wnat officials???
d) No record of Radar reports o
(If there ~rere subsequent reports ho,", do they lmo,", these ,,-ere the same object s?)
e) "IF" his case is based on t.l-tese supccositions then it surely falls apart, because
1. The photos ,rere not genuine.. 2. Noone sat-' the UFO that Barauna supposedly
photographed.
f) 1'ne photos ,';ere never a "Top Secret" subject, having been !'eleased to the press
almost :ilnmediatelyo (?) And if "top sec!'et" surely this must be called a breach
° of security etc ••••
g) Some reason for authenticity, and if so m3.ny~ople "smr" it, name mIE.
h) Developed in the dark room ,~"1E , by Bara=a o L ,:,:/",- " t ,:" ,.', -]
i) The photos ~rere sub.'Ili.tted but analysis revealed then to be fakes.
j) No longer utop secret II, only HOfficial use OI'..ly1l 0 cons"t-itu-ae
k) Note the official Brazilian Navy announc=ent " The photographs do not -f,fliiy{y,1
sufficient proof ••••••
1) ~~1hat witnesses~. 0 0 CI
m) The photos ,Jere never "authenticated"by the
efforts to supress t he;n.
Brazilian Navy, In fact they made
n) 1. False, 2. False, 3. Becc.use 1 & 2 are false, 4. False 5. True, and the Navy knew
they ,.;ere not real, 6. Fal-ee, probahly being analyized and the ship didn't get to
Barzil fer almost a month9 Y'. (?) s. (?)
0) Poor Brazjl;an Navy, Just like the USAF, vr.!.thholdillg the "facts" ••••• (THEY say)
p) This doesn't say anyt'Jing about the Saldahana photoso Only that UFO's exist, and they
do. We get about 500 a year, illcluding photoso Unfortunately none of the UFO
reports are "flying Saucers" from Outer Space.
q) This conflicts ,·lit.h 0'..lT iP..formationo
rs) 1'nis is the "theodolite" observation . Uno checked Venus??? Three hours.
) Again, no duration and no "feel" for alt itude oo 1/2 degree of a1:'C'????
t) Almosc ALL esential elements (facts) for a'1alysis missing. Duration, Illaml er of
disappearance, fli!Sht path, manuverability» hao'r ,-!as the altitude determined, etc ••
u) Sea gull •• • Meteor??? Ale a11nost anything form this limited data.
v) 1'ne one of a fe'-T seconds could be anything, r eflection, li@1t, meteor •• '••
The ~eceng pzs some of the characteristics of a star or planet but no positional
data is included. Also missing is the I/x data etc etc~ ••
w) Sounds like the same as the other sightir.g . Venus again? And there are numer011s
reasons for the transmitter to go dead~ Like t he b3.ttery or mal1'unetion of any
number of parts. \'las the receiver ,lOrking????
March 1960
a) Disagrees t-r.!.th the ONI Report.
b) NaVtJ didn't say so publicly.
c) Officie.l Navy statement. No officer or sailor from the NE 'Almirante Saldaharz'
witnessed the event.
d) Big deal ••• o IVs not a balloon,
not a plane, not a planet, not a
f~-llg saucer (sorry) •••
tray 1960
or missile~
sundog, not It IS also not a cloud, not a meteor,
the kitchen sink, and not even a
a) Note that Hopf isn't saying a thing, since he didn't a.~alize the nega~~ves.
b) Stated that pictures ~Tere taken, did not, that Saucer "!as si@1ted or that photos
were genuine. ." '/
e
c) Navy says that there is not enough evid~nce. Does t his say they are real?
) Keyhoe tactic, emitting names ar>.d lending "e.;.,.n to authenticity 0
f) Goody, one 1llO!'e saucer "believe!''', unless he is being- quoted out of context •••
g). Still not saying that the photos ~Tere genuine.
h) What ,.r...nesees , a.'1d t-That proof •••
i) Some set-up. One of the few who "claim"vto have observed the object helped develpp
the fDm;;
, , '