UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: "A. J. Gevaerd" <gevaerd@alanet.com.br> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 1997 10:52:00 -0400 Fwd Date: Mon, 07 Apr 1997 08:41:27 -0400 Subject: The Varginha 'Saga' +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ This is the reply from A. J. Gevaerd (Brazil) to=20 Drs. Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo and Willy Smith (Miami)=20 about the Varginha Case. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Doctors Willy Smith and Virgilio Sanchez-Ocejo: I had the pleasure to receive your letter as to answer my previous, about what you now curiously nominate "The Varginha Saga". I have many things to say to you and hope that now you can understand them, since you haven't shown to understand the previous points we --- the Brazilian UFO researchers --- are trying to make.=20 The first of these points is that we did not, in any moment, criticize Mr. J. J. Benitez in any other way or for any other reason than in his involvement in the Varginha Case, or "Saga", if you prefer. What could be a great contribution from him to the Brazilian UFO researchers --- especially in this so special case --- was someway spoiled on that November 12 he went to Varginha for unknown purposes, secretly.=20 Instead of talking to the right persons --- the investigators of the case, the girls who saw the alien, the military personnel who captured 2 creatures etc --- he preferred to go to the city anonymously, totally in silence. Why? Instead of sharing his discoveries with the researchers --- who were willing to give him any info he could possibly think of --- he decided to release them to the press! Why? It's definitely a very strange behavior=85 See, dear doctors, by the strange items you write in your letter you simply show that you have only a very superficial knowledge about the Varginha Case at all. Your positions are so naive that I am completely surprised! And you also show to have absolutely no knowledge whatsoever that the UFO research of this country --- despite the fact that Brazil is a Third World country --- is one of the best in the planet. You somehow defy the Brazilian researchers to come up with information believing that we don't have them. Have you ever tried to say "please"? Anyway, it's completely ridiculous, because you haven't even had the minimum necessary precaution of reading the information contained on the 3 issues about the Varginha Case I published nationwide --- one in April 96, with preliminary findings; one in-depth, exclusive edition entirely dedicated to the case published in August 96; and now, just released on March 97, a completely updated version with the last findings and a few more pieces to the puzzle [and about Benitez adventures in Brazil]. Have you tried to read them BEFORE expressing your ideas or comments?=20 You just don't have any clue of the status of research that have been conducted by some of the best trained and accurate UFO researchers in this country. You defend Benitez and you don't even know what exactly you are defending! I urge you to get better informed about the case you questions before you go on with that and even before we all go on with this fruitless discussion. Once you know the facts better we may have a serious talk! Anyway, I will answer a few of your questions, statements or accusations one by one. If you really want to know about Varginha, please talk to the right people or read the right info. I will be pleased to mail to you all the issues of the UFO Magazine I just listed above, if you send me your mailing address. It will be free, complimentary, my pleasure! They are in Portuguese, but it's up to you if you really want to go deep in this thing enough to have them translated [I had to learn English to get acquainted if the Ufology in your country]. YOU WROTE: "Continuing the frenzy generated by Brazilian UFO investigators following the Varginha case of January 1996, we have now an extensive letter from A. J. Gevaerd who is the editor of the only publication in Brazil devoted exclusively to Ufology. In his contribution, distributed extensively through INTERNET, Mr. Gevaerd intention is to clarify many of the issues related to Varginha saga, but unfortunately what he has written is not up to his reputation in the field, as it contains incorrect or inappropriate comments which we feel deserve an honest rebuttal, as we are specifically named. Since our main objective is pursuing the true and not to fuel unproductive controversies, after some hesitation, we submit this paper=85" I ANSWER: There is no "frenzy generated by Brazilian UFO investigators" neither the Varginha Case is a "saga". It's only a very well, deeply, accurately, appropriately documented, on-going case. Among us --- Brazilian researchers, who are the people who really know the case --- there is no frenzy at all. If what I wrote is or is not up to my reputation it is only your judgement of the facts --- which, by the way, you don't entirely know. And I don't believe that too many people are interested in your judgements anyway! I never intended to go into "unproductive controversies", but after reading so many misinformation on Varginha on Internet --- and I am sorry, doctors, but you have generated a few --- I got somewhat tired and decided to write a few words about it. After all, I am among the researchers in Brazil who are in the "inner circle" of the Varginha information [I have met Ubirajara Rodrigues, Marco Petit and Claudeir Covo regularly every two weeks or so for new exchange of info about Varginha].=20 YOU WROTE "That A. J. Gevaerd characterizes us in those seems (?) is a clear indication that he has only read superficially the two papers we posted on Varginha (REFLECTIONS ON THE VARGINHA CASE and THE VARGINHA EVENTS), or perhaps since the articles were written in English -- the substance of our position was not properly understood or lost in translation. To repeat it then: On December 1996 a group of local investigators arranged an appointment with J. J. Benitez during his stop at Miami, mainly to have the opportunity of meeting him. However, when he mentioned his visit to the Varginha site, we asked him to show his materials. He obliged, and we were astonished with the depth and care of his research, and our initial skepticism dissolved when we were allowed to inspect his field book and examine the almost one hundred photographs he had."=20 I ANSWER: I read your two papers on Varginha and, I am sorry, I found them just too simple or too primary. The research being conducted on Varginha and the material published about it in Portuguese are far, far beyond that. When I say you are naive, for what I apologize, I refer to what you just wrote: "we were astonished with the depth and care of his [Benitez's] research, and our initial skepticism dissolved when we were allowed to inspect his field book and examine the almost one hundred photographs". What care is that you are referring to? How could Benitez's "couple-of-hours research" be more accurate than the Brazilian researches conducted on several months, non-stop, 24-hours-a-day? If you had your skepticism dissolved after you saw Benitez's material is because you haven't believed in what you have seen before that --- which is the Brazilian evidence! If you were skeptics, it's because you didn't know anything about the case at all! It simply means that you haven't believed in the Brazilian researchers, who have been conducting in-site investigations for hundreds of hours, but believed in Benitez "couple-of-hours research"! Excuse me, doctors, but this is what I mean when I say that you don't have a good knowledge about the Varginha "Saga". By the way, if photos and annotations in a book count, I have about 300 on the Varginha Case and hundreds of pages in my computer=85 YOU WROTE: "We were also placed in a delicate situation, as we had two options: A) to keep the information under wraps, as evidently it was Benitez intellectual property, or, B) to inform the ufological community of the existence of this physical evidence of the reality of the Varginha case. With Benitez permission, we took the second course of action. So, Mr. Gevaerd, we did not become "inflamed defenders" of J. J. Benitez. Simply, we considered it was our moral obligation to impartially report what we had seen and we made sure to obtain the authorization of Mr. Benitez to publish two of the photographs we have in INTERNET. For our efforts, we have only received derogatory comments from Brazilian investigators, who don't seem to understand their objections should be addressed directly to Mr. J. J. Benitez and not to us." I ANSWER: What physical evidence? The photos? The annotations? Maybe Benitez's book? You never reported anything impartially, as you said, but completely partially! This is pure and simple desinformation! And we do not want to issue any derogatory comments to you or anybody else. We just want to inform you of what is going on in Brazil! You want you either get better informed before trying to tell people what you think or just let it go and don't talk about things you don't know. See, I never express opinions about on-going cases in which the time and reputation of several accurate UFO researchers are involved UNTILL I get I the facts directly from them. In someway, I learned it from Dr. Hynek himself, as I was appointed by him to represent CUFOS in Brazil in 1983 (do you remember you translated his letter into Spanish and signed together with him?). Well, I think that you should have learned that too! YOU WROTE "In addition, those same investigators (Ubirajara Franco Rodrigues, Vit=F3ri= o Pacaccini, Pedro Cunha, to name a few) have been unable to provide us with an annotated map of the site, or to answer the very simple question we formulated, and which we repeat here: "WHEN YOU VISITED THE SITE --PRESUMABLE IN LATE JANUARY 1996-- DID YOU NOTICE ( MEASURED, PHOTOGRAPHED, SKETCHED) ANY GROUND MARKS?"." I ANSWER: Finally, the very answer to your question is simple: NO, WE NEVER MEASURED, PHOTOGRAPHED, SKETCHED ANY GROUND MARKS in those places BECAUSE THERE WERE NOTHING THERE. Benitez's holes or ground marks are only a few months old. That's it! None of these "evidences" could be found more than a few months before Benitez went to Varginha because --- and the experts proved --- they are much newer than the Varginha Case!!! Did you know that? YOU WROTE: "To be precise, Mr. Gevaerd you state that no more than 20% of the information published on INTERNET is accurate, which of course implies that 80% is incorrect or false. Considering that the information posted in INTERNET is on a page signed by P. H. Andrade, what you are saying is that a deliberate effort has been made to distort what Brazilians know about the case." =20 I ANSWER: What I state is a fact not only towards Varginha Case, but about anything else. Take for example what you published on Internet: there are a lot of inaccuracies that don't' mean you faked info, but only that you don't have the whole figure! I would definitely estimate that no more than 20% of everything on Varginha in the net is accurate --- and what P. H. Andrade has being putting is in that 20%, as well as a few others. This people have posted summarized info about the case in the Internet, and researchers and enthusiasts from overseas start drawing conclusions based on summarized information! You did that. You obtained all your info from Internet, and that means that you are not UFO researchers, but only Internet surfers! In that case, I would suggest you surf anywhere else=85 YOU WROTE: "I can't really believe this, but in fact it would explain the resistance that we have found against Benitez contribution, which from our distant=20 perspective, should have been rejoiced the local investigators as confirming their work. Moreover, sooner or later, you will participate on a UFO conference and surely you will be closely questioned about that "missing information". I hope you will be prepared to furnish it. You urge the overseas researchers to be better informed, but how could this be done if Brazilian investigators do not answer the questions made to them?" I ANSWER: Once again, what contribution? What scientific evidence he found? Did he ever shared them with the researchers? No, he shared with the press! You are right about something, however: your "distant perspective". Maybe too distant and superficial to know what is going on in Brazil. Also, there's no missing information and I indeed have been to several countries since last year --- Australia, Chile, USA many times, England, Scotland, Argentina, Finland, Mexico etc --- speaking in conferences. In any one of these opportunities I have shown exactly what the Brazilian UFO researchers found and are still finding! I am very prepared to furnish the info I am asked to, as well as the Brazilian UFO researchers do answer all questions that they have received. Once more, dear doctors, you haven't been reading the appropriate information. In the magazines I listed above all your answers and a lot of many other questions are properly answered. Just look in the right direction, please. YOU WROTE: "Next Mr. Gevaerd makes a serious accusation: "( Benitez ) spent a couple of hours in Varginha, goes to the wrong places, with the wrong people, at the wrong time, and claims to have found something that over 30 UFO researchers --some of the best in Brazil-- couldn't find in 8 months"... I truly hope that A.J. Gevaerd con document his statements. We have seen not only the pictures taken by Benitez, but also those taken by other investigators (as for example, Bob Pratt ), and the background is the same. Even in one of the photos shown in Andrade's page the countryside is the same, but of course the investigators ( Pacaccini and Rodrigues ) could have been posing elsewhere for the photo." I ANSWER: If you go to Hawaii and take pictures of a particular beach, and than you compare with hundreds of pictures of all the beaches in the island, taken by someone else, you will find unbelievable resemblances, or won't you? Benitez took photos of places in an area that is just like the same everywhere you look at! I have dozens of them myself. That place is a vast area, doctors, and you can make hundreds of pictures aiming to different locations and get very similar results. Come on doctors, it's too primary and I don't have to teach you that! YOU WROTE: "As for the "wrong persons" accompanying Benitez during his visit to the site, this is a gratuitous insult to Tadeu Pinto Mendes and Anibal Albuquerque, who had no previous connection with the Spanish writer. The reference to the "wrong time" doesn't make much sense either. And to be honest, it would be no surprise if in a near future somebody would suggest that Benitez was purposely taken to an incorrect site where the "marks" had been planted for his benefit, with the intent of misdirecting the world's attention." =20 I ANSWER: Yes, Anibal Albuquerque and Tadeu Pinto Mendes were definitely the most wrong persons Benitez could choose to escort him in Varginha! Do you know, doctors, that Dr. Anibal is a retired colonel from the same military Army installation from where the soldiers captured the ETs? Do you ever knew that he used to be a detractor of the case in the town? Did it ever came to your knowledge that he is a close friends of the military officers who told all the soldiers to shut their months? Did Benitez ever knew that? Well, we know about it and that's way we say what we said. More: Tadeu has never, ever been involved in UFO researcher. He is just an enthusiast of the subject of UFOs with no deeper knowledge about it or even about the Varginha Case! Do you know that he didn't even understand way he was contacted to escort Benitez? Did Benitez ever realized that his escort people had none relevance whatsoever in the Varginha Case? Did you know that? Also, if you were a little bit more informed about Brazil, and particular about Minas Gerais, you would understand why I said "wrong time" --- and that it makes a lot of sense! During the last months of the year, people in that area of Brazil have the strange habit of setting fire on old crops, forests, grass fields or whatever. This fires are called "queimadas" and are repeated everywhere for no particular reason. Well, this completely explains why Benitez found insects and rocks calcinated close to his "UFO landing marks". Now, he made a primary mistake by not observing that in his "accurate research". What about yourselves? =20 YOU WROTE: "But more disturbing, Mr. Gevaerd adds: "=85 no UFO landed, but one (sic)= UFO crashed hundreds of meters from where he found the holes". How many hundreds of meters ?. One, two...?. Be as it may, this places a UFO nearby. And of course, this implies this event was carefully investigated, by serious investigators, who took photos, collected soil samples, made schematics of the area, etc... Why haven't we seen any of that material?" = =20 I ANSWER Dear doctors, if you had ever read the results of the investigations, you would certainly find descriptions of sightings made by several people who saw an strange aircraft coming down and crashing in January 20, 02:00 am. It crashed far away from where the girl saw the alien, which is a few blocks from where the first capture took place, on 10:30 h January 20 [by the way, Benitez's escorts in Brazil took him to a different location and told him that place was where the girls saw the alien --- they didn't even know exactly where was it=85 Ask Benitez yourselves, docs!].=20 If you had ever read the articles that the real Varginha researchers published in the magazines, you would know that we have one witness from the Brazilian Aerial Defense Command who works in a radar station and detected the UFO coming down exactly a few minutes before it crashed. And he --- or nobody else --- ever detected it coming up later! But I shouldn't be telling you this. Just read the material and please inform yourselves better. Why haven't you seen any the material you list above, it's because you failed to search in the proper places! Do you think that we must fell obligated to send you hundreds of pictures just to please you. Come on, doctors. It is you who are supposed to dig deeper into the facts and don't simply believe or defend someone with obscure purposes. By doing that, your acts become obscure too and I can't help to ask you: are you getting paid by Benitez do defend his weak and ridiculous findings? If so --- or if not --- please get yourselves better informed about anything you decide to discuss or defend in the future. YOU WROTE: "And why would anyone be surprised that Benitez found marks nearby. No, Mr. Gevaerd, what really upset the Brazilian investigators was the sudden revelation that very likely they had missed the marks. And what attracted our attention to this case --- which so far had NO physical evidence --- were the implications, as detailed in our first paper: REFLECTIONS ON THE VARGINHA CASE which have been conveniently ignored. I can't resist to paraphrase here the words of Stephen Jay Gould, a distinguished Harvard professor, when he tell us not to forget a cardinal rule of scholarly detection: "Don't only weigh what you have; ask why don't see what you ought to find". We feel that they fit the Varginha case perfectly."=20 I ANSWER: I tell what really upset the Brazilian investigators: it is the fact that people who don't have a single clue about the Varginha Case --- except for what they have read on the Internet --- get into the discussion trying to teach them what to do or not to do. I ask you, doctors: where else have you got information about the Varginha Case other than on Internet or through Benitez? Did you ever tried to listen to the Brazilian UFO researchers' lectures or explanations (and I have been lecturing in many places of the USA last year)? Did you try to read any of the UFO magazines I published about the cases? Did you read Vitorio Pacaccini's book Incidente em Varginha? Did you come to Brazil at any time to search the evidences for yourselves? Why haven't you tried to get info from the Brazilians politely rather than defying them to give you answers? Who do you think you are? You wrote REFLECTIONS ON THE VARGINHA CASE, that you regard a serious comment on the case, as it seems by your letter. What sort on information have you consulted to write this so pretentious paper, in which you "reflect" (sic) on a case you barely know? I am sorry, doctors, by you are as very far way from the facts as you are from Brazil. I would definitely suggest that in the future you concentrate your discussions on cases that happened nearby Miami; cases about which you can get better information. Please don't risk your reputations by defending biased opinions and wrong, inaccurate info you get on Internet. In closing, I want to paraphrase your master, Dr. Hynek: "In Ufology, what you see is not what you get". You both should know that. PS.: I took me several days to finish this letter because, unlike you both, I am a very busy man who doesn't have time to spare in non-sense discussions. Sincerely A. J. Gevaerd Editor, UFO Magazine gevaerd@alanet.com.br
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com