18.04.2024

February 8, 1982 Between Petrolina and Rio De Janeiro, Brazil

The source of this information comes from the project 1947 files and Lumieres dans la nuit (Lights in the night) number 269.

Source material and information about the sighting

The Lumieres dans la nuit article is in French and is reprint of a newspaper story from the Brazilian newspaper “O Globo”. Additionally, Patrick Gross has a web page dedicated to the case, APRO’s April 1982 Bulletin (number 30-4) contained a story about the event, and the International UFO reporter wrote about it in their July-August 1982 issue. The details of the case can be summarized by what was reported in the primary source of Lumieres dans la nuit:2

•The aircraft left Fortaleza, Brazil at 1:50 AM (4:50 GMT).

•Approximately 1 Hour and 20 minutes later, at 3:10 AM (6:10 GMT), about 40-50 miles from the city of Petrolina, the pilot, Commander Britto, first sighted the UFO off his port wing.

•The UFO followed his aircraft all the way to Rio De Janeiro, when the plane landed at 4:30 AM (7:30 GMT)

•Near Belo Horizonte, Brazil, the UFO was detected on radar at a distance of 8 miles from the aircraft at a relative position of 270 degrees.

•When the aircraft descended, the object was obscured by clouds until they reached Rio De Janeiro where it was seen again as they were approaching the airport. At this point, the sky was clear.

•When first seen, the light varied in color.

•Commander Britto inquired if there were any other aircraft in that direction relative to their aircraft, when initially seen, and Air Traffic Control (CINDACTA) said no.

•Two other aircraft reported seeing the object in the direction described. One was a Trans Brazil 177 aircraft which saw the object in the direction described when it was near Belo Horizonte at 4:30 AM. The other was an Aerolíneas Argentinas flight that was some distance behind VASP 169. The location of the object relative to the aircraft is not given in either case.

•The pilot stated the object was a little above the level of the plane (just above the horizon).

•As the plane approached Rio de Janeiro and altered its course towards the southeast, the object switched from being at the left of the aircraft to being in front of the aircraft.

•A witness in the plane described the object as “a huge star” that followed the plane in the same position relative to the aircraft (off the left side of the aircraft) “for a long time”. Another witness described the object as a “disc” that looked like a “flattened Chandelier”.

•Witness Paul Ponce stated he was awakened at 4:30 AM by the pilot announcing a UFO following the plane.

•The pilot indicated he tried to telepathically contact the UFO. Gross’ article mirrors most of this information but then proceeds to indicate that it was proposed the source of the sighting was the planet Venus.3 Britto maintained his claim that what he saw was a UFO and not Venus.

The APRO bulletin appears to have been the publication that reported the event closest to the date of the incident. Their article contains much of the same information and presents some sketches by Britto.4 He indicated the object was closest as he was around Belo Horizonte. This distance estimate appears to be based on the object being brighter at this point. They put the time of initial observation as 3:11 AM. It also stated that the pilot saw both the UFO and Venus together.

The International UFO Reporter also wrote about the case in the July-August 1982 issue.5 It used the start time of 3:11 AM. Instead of telepathic communication, the pilot stated he flashed his lights hoping for a response. The article dismissed the Venus explanation based mostly on the fact that Britto claimed to have seen Venus as well as the UFO. However, he did not say where and when he saw Venus in relation to the UFO. Venus does not appear in any of his sketches either.

Analysis

I was contacted about a year or two ago that alerted me to this case. Sadly, I lost the contact information and do not recall who sent it. I apologize to the individual for not giving them the credit for providing the potential answer to the incident. They provided me a copy of an article written by L.A.L Da Silva from Volume 27, number 4 issue of the Journal of Scientific exploration that examined the event.6

Da Silva paints a fairly convincing picture that Venus was the culprit. The main point in his explanation is that the direction reported of the UFO lines up pretty close to the position of Venus rising. According Da Silva, the aircraft was on a track of 213 degrees for most of the flight until it turned towards Rio De Janeiro when it flew towards the Southeast. This means the relative position of 270 degrees (the left wing of the aircraft) was at a position of 123 degrees. Venus was at an azimuth of 105 degrees during the time period. This means Venus would be at a relative position of 288 degrees, which is pretty close to the port wing.

While the witnesses reported seeing the UFO, they never reported seeing the very bright Venus (magnitude -4.7 at the time) as well.

In the O’Globo source, the pilot never mentioned Venus relative to the position of the UFO but other sources stated that the pilot claimed to have seen Venus and the UFO at the same time. However, they were missing Venus’ position relative to the UFO. They only stated that Venus was also visible. Da Silva states that the pilot, Britto, reported that Venus rose before the UFO appeared. 7 Is this possible?

This brings up the approximate location of when this happened. The times vary depending on the source as well as the location.

The primary source used by Weinstein gives 3:10 AM and the location of 40-50 miles from the city of Petrolina. The APRO source says it was over Bom Jesus Da Lapa. Da Silva uses Bom Jesus Da Lapa as well but it is not on the flight path (it is over100 miles away from the track). The pilot stated he maintained a 220 degree bearing all the way to Belo Horizonte. Since the magnetic declination was about -20 degrees, this corresponds to a true bearing of 200 degrees. This is the approximate azimuth one would take if one flew from Fortaleza to Belo Horizonte. If one looks along the flight path from Fortaleza and Belo Horizonte and takes the location closest to Bom Jesus Dal Lapa, it is near the town of Bairro Taquari. This is about 720 miles from Fortaleza and 310 miles from Petrolina.

For that location, Venus rose around 03:55 (0655 GMT) (at sea level) according to the Naval Observatory.8 If we account for altitude of the aircraft, it computes to about 3:49 (0649 GMT). If the pilot was stating that the UFO was seen after Venus rose, he was obviously confused where Venus actually was located. The only object that could have been confused for Venus was the planet Jupiter (magnitude -2), which was in the east about 60 degrees elevation at 3:12 AM. If Da Silva’s information is accurate about Britto stating Venus had risen before the UFO, then Britto was wrong that he saw Venus as well as the UFO.

Of course, this brings up the same problem for the explanation of Venus. According to the sources, the initial observation was between 3:10 and 3:12 AM. One assumes this time is based on the location of the plane along the flight path. The problem with this time is that it is about 37 minutes before Venus would actually rise for the airplane’s altitude and location. Da Silva suggests that a strong inversion allowed Venus to be seen sooner than the actual rise time. While an interesting theory, I find that difficult to accept. From my research, the earliest one might expect from such an effect would be about 12 minutes earlier than the predicted rise time.9 In an effort to see if there was a temperature inversion in the region, I looked for radiosonde data on February 8, 1982. I did find some radiosonde readings from Brazil but it was only for the Rio De Janeiro region, which is not to the east of the aircraft on its track southward.10 The areas between the plane and the coast were either not available or did not exist. Additionally, the Rio data was only daily at 1200Z, which was well after sunrise. If an inversion existed 6 hours prior to this, it could easily have disappeared

with the rising of the sun. On the 8th the Rio data showed a minor inversion around 1300 meters. That does not eliminate or prove a severe inversion existed between 3 and 4 AM. It just says, in that moment in time and location, there was a minor inversion. Without better data, such an extremely rare event can’t be used to explain the 37 minute difference.

The initial observation was apparently confirmed by an Aerolíneas Argentinas aircraft traveling behind VASP 167 after hearing the initial inquiry by VASP 167 to CINDACTA. This is assumed to be around 03:12. According to Da Silva, at 3:40, the Transbrasil 177 flight confirmed seeing the object to the Southeast. Da Silva adds that the pilot of this Transbrasil flight would later declare that the only thing he saw that morning was Venus.11

The Lumieres dans la nuit article quoted a transcript between the pilot and CINDACTA. It does not give the time for the initial sighting but it does give the time for the Transbrasil report as 4:30 AM. This contradicts Da Silva’s time for this event and introduces questions about the time line. Da Silva states he uses Britto’s report for the bulk of his information as well as information from the media reports of the time. We already have the issue related with exactly where on the flight path the pilot first saw the object. If the time/location is based solely on Britto’s recollections, we have to consider the possibility that the time may have been later than the time reported.

All of the witnesses on the plane, other than the pilot, were unaware of the UFO until they passed Belo Horizonte when the pilot alerted them to its presence.12 One witness stated this was at 4:30 AM.13 Others gave a time of 4:00 AM.14 Interestingly, the pilot considers this was when the object was closest because, at this point, it had become very bright. Assuming it was Venus, this is not unusual. As Venus cleared the thick atmospheric layers close to the horizon, it would have increased in brilliance the same way the sun becomes brighter as it rises above the horizon.

As for the radar contact, Da Silva addresses it as an anomalous return.15 He states that an official report that was released about that contact indicated similar returns were seen near other aircraft that night. This might indicate an inversion was present that night producing false returns or the radar tended to introduce ghost images. This is not unheard of and random targets can appear on radar sets. There is no verification that this radar contact was the same as the visual one. As a result, it can be dismissed.

Conclusion

In my opinion, Venus is a potential explanation for most of this sighting. It was in the same general direction the UFO was located and none of the witnesses, other than the pilot, ever stated it was near another bright object like Venus. However, the first part of the sighting is problematic for Venus because it had not risen yet. A possible severe refraction event might have been the cause for Venus being visible before it rose but that seems like an extremely rare event and there is no evidence that can support it. The only explanation that seems more likely is that the time given of the first sighting was not accurate and it actually happened at a later time. Once the plane is near Belo Horizonte, the evidence does indicate Venus was involved and it makes for a fairly convincing explanation. I would reclassify this as possibly Venus and remove it from the Weinstein catalog.

Quelle: SUNlite 1/2024