DOW-UAP-D102 — Tremonton Film: Conflicting Technical Assessments

Newhouse’s submission places the observation about seven miles north of Tremonton at 1110 on 2 July 1952 and identifies a handheld 16 mm camera operating at 16 frames per second.

Place: About 7 miles north of Tremonton, Utah on U.S. Highway No . 30S. Time: 1110 Wednesday 2 July 1952. Camera: B&H Automs.ster, magazine load, 3 11 telephoto lens, 16 frames per second. Handheld.

Newhouse reported about ten or twelve objects milling in a rough formation and proceeding westward.

There was a group of about ten or twelve objects -that bore no relation to anything I had seen before -milling about in a rough formation and proceeding in a westerly direction.

Newhouse said the empty sky supplied no reference point, preventing him from estimating the objects’ speed, size, altitude, or distance.

There was no reference point in the sky and it was impossible for me to make any estimate of speed, size, altitude or distance.

Newhouse reported that one object reversed course; he then held the camera still while it crossed the field of view several times.

Toward the end one of the objects reversed course and proceeded away from the main group. I held the camera still and allowed this single one to cross the field of view

The submitted evidence was described as one 50-foot roll of processed 16 mm color motion-picture film.

One (1) fifty-foot roll of processed 16mm color motion picture film

The Naval Photographic Interpretation Center reported that the Utah film was dry and brittle and duplicated it to preserve the footage.

The film exposed in Utah ie i n very poor condition; dry, brittle, a nd with a tendency to break. After initial viewing, duplication of the film was peri"ormed in order to preserve the f~

The Navy report cautioned that its densitometry could not measure whole objects at maximum image size and was performed on a duplicate of a copy, raising a possible image-burnout problem.

It is understood that normal procedure would be to read the entire object. This was illlpossible with the equipment on hand. In addition the film, with which this investigation was conducted, is a duplicate of a copy.

The Navy analysis team’s majority opinion treated the images as light sources and said it could not identify them as natural phenomena or commonly known man-made objects; the file does not establish that interpretation independently.

It is the majority opinion of the group conducting this analysis that these images are light sources. This will explain the non-blinking and variations i n luminosity -but not the velocity or acceleration faciors.

The Navy report’s apparent oblate or disk-shaped description and 98-foot maximum size were calculation results conditioned on an assumed five-mile distance, not a directly observed object shape or dimension.

The shape of the objects appears to be oblate or disk shaped, color; blue-white, and maximum a nd minimum size; 98 and 16 feet. The size is baaed on the assumpt ion that the objects are five miles from the observer.

The Navy velocity calculation assumed a steady camera, motion perpendicular to the optical axis, and an arbitrary five-mile distance.

In determining the velocity of the objects three assumptiorus were ma.de: a. The camera was held steady during Part III of the film. b. The objects were moving perpendicular to the optical axis, and c. The objects were five miles from the camera.

The Navy report stated that its findings had not been corroborated and that the investigation was limited by equipment, money, and personnel.

As to the resuJ.ts of the investigations being reported, no attempt was made tooorroborate the ppinions presented. Because of the lack of proper e ui ment, money and e onnel the in on was 1 .

A December 1952 inquiry found that two Office of Naval Research personnel thought the objects were pillow balloons, but also recorded that the Navy had released none near Tremonton at the relevant time.

it was his opinion, as well as that of Lt Lewis, ONR, that the objects photogr~phed were pill-0w balloons. However, Lt Ross said that the Navy had not .f:el~ased any pillow balloons in or near that area at that time.

Balloon specialists who repeatedly viewed the film generally thought the objects closely resembled pillow balloons, while General Mills’ J. R. Smith considered them too bright and fast for that explanation.

It was the consensus of opinion that the objects resembled pillow balloons 1n flight very closely and did nothing that pillows would not do in similar circumstances. J. R. Smith was the least convinced of this hypothesis

The balloon-review group placed little confidence in angular-velocity computations because they depended on the assumption that Newhouse kept the camera still.

None of the persons present placed much faith in the computations of angular velocity, since all were predicated upon Newhouse's holding the camera still.

A proposed Air Force public statement said the images were too poorly defined to identify their form or substance and that the absence of reference points prevented distance, size, and linear-speed estimates.

Images appearing on the film are nonsufficiently defined to permit identification or determination of form or substance and should have been caused by unknown objects or undetermined known obJects. The absence of any reference ooints, even clouds, in the bac·ground

An internal Air Force memorandum said two astronomers judged the Navy’s image-brightness method wrong, undermining the report’s conclusions and motivating proposed comparison tests.

It was brought out by two astronomers who heard a Navy briefing on the analysis of the movies that the method used to measure the brightness of each spot was wrong, therefore, the results of the entire study were wrong.

A March 1954 Navy letter stated that its photographic interpretation center had never possessed the original film and did not know its whereabouts.

It is advised that this Center bas never had possession of the original film and does not have in:formation concerning its whereabouts.

Baker’s 1956 review found that the measured angular velocity could fit soaring birds at less than a mile and a single bird within roughly 1,000 feet.

The relative angular velocity might be canpatible with soaring bird speeds at distances at less than one mile, the angular velocity ot the single objeot coul.d be attributed to a bird within about one thousand feet.

After considering insects, mirage, camera artifacts, and birds, Baker wrote that the evidence was contradictory and no single proposed natural hypothesis completely accounted for the objects.

The evidence remains rather contradictory and no si:cgle hypothesis of a natural phenomenon yet suggested seems to completely account for the UFO involved.

A June 1956 Air Force memorandum said a later blind review identified the images as bird reflections and asserted there was little reasonable doubt that the objects were seagulls; this was an agency conclusion rather than independent proof.

A recent analyaia of the Newhouae film, male by Air .Force photo apeclali•t• totally unaware of the previous hiatory o! thi• case, yielded the opinion that the bright spote of light on the film were bird refiecti0t1s in the strong aunlight.

A Hill AFB telegram recorded one weather balloon released at each of 0200 and 0800 on 2 July 1952 and reported trajectory and wind details, without identifying the filmed objects as either balloon.

PROJECT BLUE BOOK 1 WEA BLN EA RELSD 0200 AND 0800 2 JUL 52 TRAJECTORY SW TO NE THENCE W TO E THENCE NW TO SE DURING ASCENSION WINDS GENLY FR W SPEED 10-12 KNOTS