Return Home

Note (October 23, 2003): 

This piece was sparked by the publication of an article in the August 2003 MUFON Journal by the Editor, Dwight Connelly. In his article, Connelly analyzed the Brazilian abduction case concerning Urandir Oliveira, and concluded it strongly appeared to be a hoax. [Connelly's report in full can be read at http://www.seattlechatclub.org/CReport.html

I had originally hoped to get my article published in the September or October MUFON Journal, but Dwight politely informed me that he was taking no more submissions on this topic. After a private email exchange with him on the substance of the case itself (in which we essentially agreed to disagree), I realized there would be only one home for my article: at this website. 

------

Brazilian Abduction Hoax? Not Yet:

There is One (and only one) Bedsheet

by Richard M. Dolan

September 7, 2003

I read with great interest the article by MUFON Journal Editor Dwight Connelly regarding the Urandir abduction case. This of course concerns the alleged abduction of one Urandir Oliveira, a Brazilian man, from his home amid circumstances that are, to put it mildly, very bizarre. Connelly agreed with the many vocal detractors of this case and declared it to be a hoax.

Now, I’ve been following this case all along, at least since Linda Moulton Howe began investigating it in early 2003. I have followed the attacks against the case, in particular those by Brazilian UFO researcher A. J. Gevaerd and Seattle UFO researcher Charlotte LeFevre. I also watched (with dismay) how many UFO researchers increasingly focused their attacks on Linda Howe personally.

However, it was while reading Connelly’s article that I decided to review what I knew of the case. I’m glad I did, because in so doing I have discovered without question that the main argument and evidence used to argue this case is a hoax is itself ... wrong.

I refer to the claim that two bedsheets were used by Urandir. Since Urandir and his supporters have made the unusual claim that the abduction caused burn marks on the bedsheet, the existence of two bedsheets would be proof of a hoax. LeFevre made this point very clearly, after she claimed to have done careful photographic analysis of a picture taken in September 2002 by Urandir’s friend Felipe Branco, and then compared it to a photo taken by Linda Howe when she visited Urandir’s farm five months later in February 2003.

On the website of the Seattle UFO/Paranormal Group (of which LeFevre is President), both images are shown side by side.

These images can also be seen at the Seattle Club website at http://www.seattlechatclub.org/urandir.html

Connelly referred to these images in his article. As presented on the website, it does indeed seem obvious these are two different sheets. In the first place, in Branco’s picture (left), the distance between the legs is much narrower than in Howe’s photo. Secondly, the amount of burning is drastically different. Whereas in Branco’s photo, the burning may have been severe, in Howe’s photo the bedsheet is so badly burned that there are huge holes in it. Additionally, while the bedsheet in Howe’s photo shows a distinctive blue and white pattern, the bedsheet in Branco’s picture looks like a basic white bedsheet.

While there are other reasons people have doubted the Urandir case, it is the bedsheet analysis which has been the foundation for the hoax argument. And if one were to restrict one’s analysis to LeFevre’s article, "hoax" would be the easiest and most logical conclusion to make.

Except that the claim is wrong, since those two photos are of the same bedsheet.

In the first place, the images on the Seattle UFO/Paranormal Group website are small, of low resolution, and (most importantly) tightly cropped so as to show only the burn images themselves.

The result is deceptive. Fortunately, Jeff Rense’s website displayed the entire, higher-resolution image that Branco took. When you study the picture, several things become apparent. First, you can see that the angle toward the bed is much sharper than the angle taken by Linda Howe. That is, she took her image from the foot of the bed, while Felipe was off to the side. This is why the burn marks of the legs look much closer together in his picture.

[The full photograph taken by Felipe Branco in September 2002.]

[Linda Howe's photograph from February 2003]

To repeat. The only reason the burn images in Branco’s photo look closer together is because he took the photo at an angle to the bed, while Linda Howe did not.

However, even after accounting for the difference in position, the two burn images still look different, don’t they? After all, one has been burned fully through, while the other has not.

But a careful study of the two images resolves this issue. You will notice that the areas where the sheet burned all the way through in Howe’s photo corresponds exactly with the most deeply burned areas in Branco’s photo. Yes, the perspective and angle are different, which makes it a bit challenging. The lighting also is not the same.

But the burn pattern is the same. The only difference is that Howe’s photo, taken five months after Branco’s, shows that the bedsheet suffered degradation, and that this degradation occurred in the most severely burned areas.

I am not a photo analyst by trade, but I can tell what I’m seeing. These photos are of the same bedsheet. Of course, this has been Linda Howe’s contention all along. However, many researchers ignored her claim because she did not address why the burn patterns looked so different. Instead, she only discussed how, depending on the lighting of the photo, the bedsheet might show a printed pattern, and at other times look white. While this explanation is convincing, it was incomplete.

(As an aside, LeFevre and Connelly also mentioned the fact that there are two pillows. I don’t see how this is a problem, when after all Linda Howe has agreed with them that there were two pillows in Urandir’s bedroom. How is having matching pillows in your bedroom a reason to claim hoax? Further, Howe’s photos in Corguinho have always shown the front scorched pillow propped up in front of the back pillow.)

Now, anyone can make a mistake, and photographs can be mistakenly analyzed. Until the machines take over (give them about twenty years or so), we shall simply have to live with the fact that our ability to study certain matters will be fallible. We are, after all, only human.

But when I reflect on how Charlotte LeFevre’s photographic analysis has been considered to be so important to this case, and when I see how these two images are presented on her website, I must admit that I have serious concerns. Essentially, I have a hard time seeing how this can be an honest mistake.

After studying the two images side by side, it’s just not that difficult to see that this is the same bedsheet. In fact, it is obvious that they are the same. Charlotte LeFevre had access to the original photo by Branco, and she cropped it in precisely the way that made the burn pattern look most different from the burn pattern in Howe’s photo.

On the Seattle UFO/Paranormal Group website, and in Connelly’s article, much was made of LeFevre’s Bachelor’s degree in Research (what kind of research was not clear), and of her membership in the Ohio Academy of Science. How, then, could she have missed the obviously identical nature of the two burn patterns, and why would she display them in the way that she did?

The bedsheet is the single most important piece of evidence in this case. Linda Howe has taken it to several labs for analysis. The results of these analyses are themselves under dispute. One scientist, Phyliss Budinger, has made a case that the sheet does not show anomalistic features, while other scientists, biophysicist W. C. Levingood and textile expert Herbert Barndt, have said there are features of the burning pattern that are not conventionally explainable.

Thus, one can still argue as to whether or not the body image could have been made by a blowtorch, as Budinger believes, or could not have been, as Barndt maintains. But if there is a hoax involved in this case, it is not because two bedsheets were used. There was one, and only one, bedsheet.

An outsider could easily speculate that some of Urandir's detractors have been less than honest. I do not know Charlotte LeFevre. What I think she ought to do, however, is to tell the rest of us just how it came to pass that she made such a mistake in her analysis. I also think that Dwight Connelly should do the same, considering that he wrote his analysis as a representative of MUFON itself.

At best, LeFevre and Connelly have shown very sloppy work. Readers can surmise their own "at worst" scenario.

There have been several Brazilians who have made statements against Urandir’s character and his propensity for showmanship over the years. Perhaps what they say is true, perhaps not: none of the American UFO researchers really know who these people are. Moreover, other than Linda Howe herself, none of the other interested parties has recently been to Urandir’s farm. Doesn’t it seem like a good idea for some independent researchers to go there and see what kind of operation Urandir is running? Until this is done, I think that definitive claims about Urandir ought to be suspended.

I don’t know if this case signifies a real abduction. I don’t know if Urandir’s claims about communicating with aliens is true. I don’t know if he faked the whole thing. I don’t know if he’s a cult leader, as some allege. Heck, I don’t know if the Yankees will get decent pitching next season, nor can I predict the mood of my five-year old daughter at any given time. But in the absence of knowledge, we must not condemn. We must continue to ask questions, to gather data, to analyze.

One thing to me is obvious. If you are going to claim this case is a hoax, you can no longer claim there are two bedsheets, and you must find a definitive reason somewhere else. Although there are some good reasons why an outsider to this case should remain skeptical, neither LeFevre, nor Connelly, nor anyone else has provided a smoking gun. The bedsheet was supposed to be that smoking gun, but is not.

Anyone who has done the slightest bit of UFO research should have come to the realization that this field is far more bizarre than they originally thought. It can only be thus in the study of a phenomena that originates from an intelligence superior to our known. Study of UFOs, and of the alien intelligence behind them, is a mind stretching, and mind bending experience. It shatters our old, tired, preconceptions about our history, about our current society, and indeed about the nature of reality itself.

It is therefore of the utmost importance to be diligent, thorough, and above all honest in how we research and present what evidence we acquire. If we fail in this most basic task, how are we to comprehend what’s what in this smoke-filled hall of mirrors?