Tuesday, December 24, 2013

The Newhouse Utah Movie - Part Two

Well, as I have said, repeatedly, nothing is simple in the world of the UFO. Skeptics have made a big deal out of a letter written by Dr. James McDonald in which he quotes from his 1970 interview with Delbert Newhouse that he, Newhouse, was “…positive they had cut the first 10 or 20 feet [of the film], which were shot when the objects were very much closer…” There was also discussion by Newhouse that he had not received the original film back and that seems to be borne out by various letters and memos contained in the Project Blue Book files.

Given a review of McDonald’s letter, it seemed that Newhouse, at best was confused and confabulating and at worse telling lies to strengthen his case. One of the major points was that the Air Force had altered his film. I wrote:

The real point where this falls apart, at least for me, is when Newhouse began talking to McDonald about his film. Here is the one thing that is well documented in the Project Blue Book files and for the believers we have the statements made by Newhouse himself about the film when he submitted it to the Air Force…

So we talked about the length of the film and how it doesn’t seem that it had been altered. Everything pointed to there being some thirty feet of film of the UFOs and then additional vacation footage that was removed and returned to Newhouse. Everything in the Blue Book file seemed to line up and showed that Newhouse was mistaken.

Before we go on, I should point out that I was using a microfilm copy of the Project Blue Book files and according to the available index, the Tremonton case is on Roll 11. It is the first case there. The last case on Roll 10, according to the index was from Phoenix, Arizona.

The thing is, it seemed that some of the Blue Book file on Tremonton was missing, so I put Roll 10 in the microfilm reader, and found more documents that were part of the that case. All this would be irrelevant had it not been for an unsigned and undated document on Roll 10 that was addressed to “L/C [Lt. Col.] Adams w/orig film 10/22/52.”

This was a list of requirements for the Air Force investigation of the Tremonton Movie and point number five is the part that is relevant to us. It said, “The loose (unspliced) portion of 17 frames belongs at the end of the footage having a deep blue background and no sound track. The last frame of this loose portion is immediately adjacent to the splice with the broken frame having the sound track.”

The 17 frames comprise about one second of film and it was noted that it should go at the end of the film when the objects were farther away as opposed to the beginning when Newhouse said they were closer. We also know that the Air Force cut off the last 20 feet of film which was Newhouse vacation footage and had nothing to do with the UFO sighting.

What does this mean?

Well, if we attempt to look at it dispassionately, we see that Newhouse was correct when he said the film had been altered. True, he was saying the first 10 or 20 feet were missing but it was the last 20 that had been cut off. It had nothing to do with the UFOs, but after nearly 20 years, it seems reasonable for Newhouse to say that the film had been cut and some was missing.

That, of course, doesn’t quite match what he was claiming, and it was only the vacation footage… at least that was reasonable until we find this other memo. Now we know that some of the UFO footage was “loose” from the rest of it and we don’t know if the prints of the film that circulated afterward, especially those that leaked into the civilian world, had those frames reattached.

The thing we have to remember is that the documents now available to us were written at the time and I believe that those writing them didn’t think of the future or who might have access to them in the future. In other words, they were candid in what they said rather than trying to “talk around” a point. Had they detached a longer segment of the film from the beginning, I believe the description in the files would have related this. In this case, however, I suspect that the missing frames reveal nothing that can’t be seen on the rest of the film.

However, this does seem to strengthen, to a degree, Newhouse’s statements to McDonald some twenty (or 18) years after the fact. He said the film was altered, he said that frames were missing, and he was correct about both those things.

Is all this enough for us to now accept as real everything else he said after the fact?

Well, no. It points out that his memory was accurate to a point, but the details, the minutia of the sighting, still seems to be slightly in error. There is no evidence that any footage is missing from the beginning of the film, but there is footage missing from the film as documented in the Blue Book file... or rather that some 17 frames was detached from the original film.

What this does is add a little bit of strength to the overall case, showing that Newhouse was correct about some of what he said. It doesn’t really move the bar very far but moves it a little. For some that will be enough but for others it won’t matter at all. I just point this out for the sake of clarity in an otherwise complicated case.


David Rudiak said...

Some points:

1. From Blue Book documentation, we don't know what sort of copy or copies Newhouse received back from the AF or the length(s). There is a letter from Newhouse requesting another copy since the first he received was damaged during viewing. He also requested the original so that he could personally copy it, but was willing to return the original.

By this time, BB in another document said the original was in very poor condition. So presuming they sent him another copy, was it made from the original or from a copy or a copy of a copy? If the latter, the image quality would be at least third generation or worse and notably inferior, which would be in line with what Newhouse recalled.

2. Has the full 75 seconds or 30 feet of UFO film ever been seen publicly? The documentary "UFO" with film provided by the AF to MGM only shows 45 seconds, with 30 seconds missing. About the first 15 seconds of the shown film is obviously of the lower contrast, brighter sky f/8 exposure, whereas Newhouse told McDonald he filmed an estimated 20-25 seconds at this exposure before switching to f/16. Assuming Newhouse to be right about that, that alone is 5-10 seconds MISSING from the first part of the film. (And there is still another 20-25 seconds unaccounted for footage missing from the MGM "UFO" version, most if it showing the formation, i.e. toward the beginning or middle of the film, not the lone object at the very end.)

Newhouse reported from the beginning that the objects were moving away from them as he filmed, first to the north, then turning west, after which the one object peeled off and headed east before disappearing in the distance. By the time he turned the camera back to capture the group to the west, they were disappearing far off in the distance.

The point here is if Newhouse received the same sort of copy as MGM used, then the first 10 or so seconds of film at f/8 missing from the MGM film might also have been missing from Newhouse's copy when the objects were indeed closer, with another missing segment from the f/16 darker portion.

3. Why the heck would there have been any splices in the film at all with 17 frames detached from the MIDDLE of the film reel at the end of the UFO footage, if Newhouse submitted it all as one 50 foot reel? (Perhaps it got sliced up by the analysts?)

4. What does the length of the film have to do with why they attracted Mrs. Newhouse's attention to begin with as BRIGHT objects off in the distance, so interesting she insisted on her reluctant husband stopping the car (which she estimated took about a minute). This has EVERYTHING to do with whether they could have been birds or not. At about a mile, if birds had been visible at all, the last thing they would have been seen as was bright.

5. Also what does the length of the film or spliced or not have to do with the images on the film that the early Navy and AF analysts (and later Baker) decided were NOT birds, in part because they were too bright? Newhouse allegedly "lying" or "confabulating" the length of the film or splicing it has NOTHING to do with this and would not strengthen his case one whit. The only thing that might strengthen his case was his claim of the missing front footage when the objects were closer and more distinct. And there might be some independent evidence for that, given the missing footage from the MGM documentary.

6. Why does nearly everybody keep ignoring even the early AF interview description of the objects being about equally long as wide and thin, a probable interpretation being a disc shape? And where are the statements from his family, who were also eyewitnesses and also said to have been interviewed? Where is the transcript of the intel interview, which likely would have been made, which Newhouse said he saw with his "pie-pan" description, but which is not in BB files? Besides missing film footage, there seems to be missing documentation, which might have cleared this all up.

Jim Robinson said...

If Newhouse had seen seagulls the angular size of a B29 at 10,000ft he would have certainly identified them as seagulls, instead of indicating they were unlike anything he had ever seen.

Lyall M said...

David has an interesting point. In looking at the Blue Book file that’s on-line it looks like the Air Force attempted to write a press release but there is no indication that the USAF ever actually publically released the Tremonton film (Pages 380-383).

The Tremonton film available totals out at 45 seconds 720 frames which considerably shorter than the 75 seconds and 1200 frames mentioned in the Blue Book files as David pointed out. In fact it looks like MGM’s UFO film was the source for the film with many web sites and documentaries leaving in MGM’s cuts and enlargements without giving credit to them. In the Blue Book Files they have a memorandum for their scientific advisor – Report on Preview of Motion Picture “Unidentified Flying Objects” (Pages 402-404) 5/21/1956. Under the Tremonton Case point number 1 the writer states “The original film shows the presence of seagulls on a number of frames. This is not shown in the Hollywood version.”

So is the full 75 second version available from the USAF or USN? Did MGM get their copy from the USAF or defense department and edit it down to 45 seconds? How long was the copy that Delbert Newhouse received?

Regarding the editing and the 17 frames: the memo mentions soundtrack in relation to the position of the frames which to me signals that they are referring to one of their 35MM duplicates. It is kind of funny to see progression in the search for the original film when Newhouse requested getting it back. The USAF seems to have forgotten that the original was 16MM until reminded by the USN who apparently only ever received a bad duplicate in 35MM from which they had to make their own copies of.

It is apparent that the USAF kept Newhouse in the loop as to what was going on with his film until shipping him a copy and then again later on when he requested to get it back and they sent him another copy.

David Rudiak said...

Lyle wrote:

In the Blue Book Files they have a memorandum for their scientific advisor – Report on Preview of Motion Picture “Unidentified Flying Objects” (Pages 402-404) 5/21/1956. Under the Tremonton Case point number 1 the writer states “The original film shows the presence of seagulls on a number of frames. This is not shown in the Hollywood version.”

If the original film clearly showed sea gulls in some of the frames, you would think that the earlier Navy and AF analysts in 1952, also Baker 1955-56, would have also noticed this. It's not rocket science to notice details like wings in still frame or fluttering luminance levels in movies as the birds flap their wings.

The switch to the film showing birds, or maybe balloons, came after the CIA Robertson Panel pushed the idea of birds. Let us also remember the Robertson Panel recommendations included public debunkery through mass media outlets like Disney (or MGM), so the switch to "sea gulls" after the Robertson Panel was not surprising, with the AF now blithely ignoring the earlier expert analyses of their own people and those of the Navy.

It is rather surprising, however, that the documentary "UFO" did not push birds, instead cited the earlier studies stating they didn't believe they were birds. If some of the frames really showed "sea gulls", I would think the AF would have made a point of including these in any film released to MGM and specifically pointing out which film footage showed the gulls.

The 30 seconds of film footage missing from the MGM documentary also begs questions as to what was on the missing footage, whether MGM ever received it, whether it has ever been publicly seen, and also whether Newhouse received it on the copies he got.

Larry said...

It should be realized that the presence of birds in some frames of some version of the film could actually cut either way as far as bolstering or contradicting the idea that what Newhouse was filming were birds or not.

On the one hand, it proves that birds were in the area. But that was never seriously in question.

On the other hand, it raises the question: if birds were clearly recognizable in the introductory part of the film, why wouldn't they have been equally recognizable in the main part? Distance from the camera is the obvious possibility, but without any information about how far away the known birds were, it is difficult to know just what that piece of information means.

Larry said...

It should be realized that the presence of birds in some frames of some version of the film could actually cut either way as far as bolstering or contradicting the idea that what Newhouse was filming were birds or not.

On the one hand, it proves that birds were in the area. But that was never seriously in question.

On the other hand, it raises the question: if birds were clearly recognizable in the introductory part of the film, why wouldn't they have been equally recognizable in the main part? Distance from the camera is the obvious possibility, but without any information about how far away the known birds were, it is difficult to know just what that piece of information means.

Larry said...

I apologize for the double posting of my last comment. I only pushed the "send" button once. I have no idea how that happened.

Lance said...

It is hilarious that Rudiak, who first flatly stated that Newhouse never made any claim of missing footage now has fully jumped aboard the fantasy of missing footage! Interestingly, the documents and interviews that Rudiak has created in his mind all say the exact things that the committed conspiracy fantasist desires even if the actual documents in hand don't support his silly claims.

In December of 1953, Newhouse wrote to the AF that the 16mm duplicate of his film (that had been given to him by the AF) had been damaged and he was wondering if he could get back the original. Newhouse makes NO CLAIM that the copy is missing any footage. Surely he would have noticed that the footage of a sky full of FULL MOON SIZED OBJECTS (as the saucer buffs would have it) was missing?

Newhouse himself stated that the first few feet were exposed f8 and that the rest were f16. In the footage we see on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wH4xofCFFkA), we can see the aperture change so that footage that Rudiak feverishly imagines must be extraordinarily short (although imaginary footage can be as long as one wants it to be, I suppose)

The Air Force did complain that the film was in bad shape (Newhouse had exhibited it at home prior to sending it in--perhaps the same projector that destroyed his copy had damaged the original, too?) and copies were needed to protect it. This could explain the splices, etc. but a simple explanation is never enough for the fantasist, is it?

It never strikes the saucer buff as odd that nowhere in the secret analysis documents is there any mention of a sky full of FULL MOON SIZED objects or ANY indication that the early footage shows appreciably larger objects.

Ok, I saved the best for last:

The Air Force made a careful list of each of the 7 shots in the film. The total length is 71 and a half seconds (notice how Rudiak effortlessly inflates this to 75 seconds using conspiracy mathematics).



Now then, looking at the footage that we see on Youtube, I note the following shots:

1. Light BG approx 6 seconds (should be 10 seconds)_
2. Light BG approx 10 seconds (should be 14 seconds)
3. Darker BG approx 13 seconds (should be 19 seconds)

Noticing a pattern?

4. Darker BG approx 12 seconds (should be 17 seconds)
5. Darker BG very short, maybe a second and a half (should be 2.5 seconds)
6. Darker BG approx 3 seconds (should be 4.5)
7 Darker BG --unknown length (video ends in middle).

Note that my timings are approx.

In other words, the video on Youtube corresponds very well with official inventory of shots made by the AF, except the shots are all shorter. Why is this?

Before Rudiak postulates government time control, I will suggest a simple solution.

Most motion pictures are displayed at 24 frames per second. Newhouse's 16mm film was shot at approx 16 frames per second (approx 66% or 24FPS speed). I think that the Youtube video was created from an element projected at 24fps--that's why the shots are all shorter--they are running faster. Projecting film at the wrong speed is a common problem. For instance, until recently the best copies of Chaplin movies were all released on DVD at the wrong speed.

Notice how my rough timings all correspond to that 66% speed? I made retimed version of the film that corresponds perfectly with the AF inventory (the motion all looks more natural as well). Send me an email if you would like a copy.

There is no missing footage, except in the minds of those for whom reality has disconnected and floated away.


Lance said...

In the above, I should correct this phrase:

(approx 66% OF 24FPS speed).

This is a textbook example of how saucer believers and conspiracy buffs CREATE their fantasies. Usually it's tough to untangle the crazy logic and misinformation so it is particularly satisfying to have a clearcut case like this to demonstrate how the buff's brain works.


Lance said...

I did some more precise work with the footage and have some additional info.

I should note that converting frame rates in my work as a film editor is a treacherous business and it is hard to know what conversions this little YouTube film has gone through before it got to us. If it was shot at 16FPS (approx--these devices were imprecise) then converted to 24FPS for the motion picture then covered again to 29.97 for video, etc there is a lot of room for error to creep in.

That being said, by simply converting the clip to 16FPS and lining up the obvious shot changes, I find that all shots line up nearly perfectly with the AF inventory.

I think the clip omits about 8 frames of the first shot and that there is about a second omitted from the last shot (perhaps the missing second that Kevin speaks of in his piece).

Otherwise there is a near frame perfect matchup.

In the next to last shot, I see an obvious splice and additional damage.

It will interesting to see the cognitive dissonance of the saucer faithful.


KRandle said...

Lance -

I certainly wish you could post without getting so snarky. It does you no good and annoys those who wish to find out what is happening.

Oh, you wish some evidence. You wrote, "The total length is 71 and a half seconds (notice how Rudiak effortlessly inflates this to 75 seconds using conspiracy mathematics)."

I now quote from Hartmann's analysis in the Condon Committee's final report, page 420, "The film contains about 1200 frames,... i.e. about 75 sec." So David didn't effortlessly inflate anything, he just used the timing provided by Hartmann who it turns out is the one to use the conspiracy mathematics.

KRandle said...

Lance -

I thought you might want another example which is you shouting about "a sky full of FULL MOON SIZED OBJECTS (as the saucer buffs would have it)..."

But Newhouse never really said that did he. When asked, he said that if the objects were about the size of a B-29 as seen at 10,000 feet. It was the same as him saying that the objects were the size of a dime held at arms length. It was Baker who converted that estimate into an object being about the size of a full moon... or, if you will, providing an example of what the angular size suggested. But Newhouse didn't say they were that size, only that they appeared to be that size if the B-29 was at 10,000 feet.

So, your hyperbole, is simply that, hyperbole. No one was talking about a sky full of moon sized objects except you.

Well, I'll wait to see how you handle this...

Lance said...


You are probably right about the snarkiness. I'll try to do better.

Yes, Hartmann estimated the length. You should notice that in Rudiak's first post, he has eliminated the idea of estimation and states 75 seconds as an absolute length. He then follows that with paragraph after paragraph of his own conspiracy meandering.

The whole thing is rather silly. There were seven shots carefully documented by the AF. We have seven shots on the little video clip.

I think I have adequately accounted for why the shots are shorter than they would be at 16FPS.

There is no missing footage (other than possibly a few frames at the beginning and end).

But if I hadn't come in with the information, Rudiak would have continued to spin this further, just as he has done in the Roswell case.

I do feel that conspiracy fantasies are harmful--that the Rudiak-type of thinking is an affront to intelligence and truth.

It's a shame that you put yourself on that side of the fence. It's particularly a shame when the truth is so easy to see as it is in this case.


Lance said...

Kevin-- I notice that you dance around the actual point of my post. If that comforts you, so be it.

I didn't say moon-sized. I said full-moon sized, obviously referring to the angular size which IS what Newhouse tried to claim and what Rudiak repeated here.


KRandle said...

Lance -

You do what you accuse everyone else of doing. Your FULL MOON SIZED OBJECTS is not an accurate interpretation of the evidence. It is your analysis that is skewed.

In his September 10, 1952 interview with the Air Force, Newhouse said, "Objects appeared as long as they were wide and thin," which is not a FULL MOON SIZED OBJECT. This can be interpreted as circular (or as I noted in another post) as square or diamond shaped but not as a huge glowing orb.

As you pointed out, the objects were seen in the sky with nothing around them to help in determining size, speed or distance. He suggested that they were as large as a B-29 (which, BTW, is not a huge ball-shaped object, but a long, thin tube) as seen at 10,000 feet. R. Baker suggested this was an angular size of the moon, meaning, clearly, that if you drew a line through the equator of the moon, the object would be that wide, not that it was a huge glowing ball. Next time you're outside, take a look at an aircraft flying overhead. Does that look like a FULL MOON SIZED OBJECT?

The point is that your interpretation is not represented by the facts given and is used to belittle the evidence rather than examine it. Dose this mean that Newhouse filmed alien spacecraft? No, it means that this harping on FULL MOON SIZED OBJECTS is inaccurate.

Lance said...

I accept your argument, Kevin, although I think you are splitting hairs. The things that Newhouse filmed are more or less round. If they were (angular) as large as a full moon in one dimension, it stands to reason that he was describing something that was quite large in the sky (angular size again, always angular size) and a whole squadron of them.

I note that this was not his initial claim but came later. His reports and letters in the Blue Book files don't even hint of the large (angular) size until several years after the sighting.

He then later claimed that he had actually filmed the larger (angular) objects but that this film was hidden by the AF.

This, I think I have satisfactorily debunked.

And that was really the whole point of my posts. Being able to see such a false claim as it is being formulated by the saucer buffs was qute revealing.

I welcome any discussion and promise to be nice if anyone has would like to talk about this. I realize that being snarky is off-putting. It's also not really my personality (except sometimes on the internet, sadly).

Happy Holidays,


KRandle said...

Lance -

I think I'll split another hair, and risk being proven wrong on this. I know of no place that Newhouse claimed his movie had been cut other than in the interview with James McDonald... He made notes during his conversation, and I have no real reason to suspect he got the facts wrong, but it was McDonald who introduced the missing film into the investigation. The other sources I found were derivative of
the McDonald letter.

I know that when I talked to him in 1976, he mentioned nothing like that, but, as I say, I was interested in verifying the information I had to make sure that it wasn't something invented by some of the less credible UFO writers. So, without another interview made with a similar claim, I suppose I could say that this shortened film idea is second-hand information.

And yes, I freely admit that this is a very fine hair to split.

Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

Yes, I found it noted in an interview done closer to the end of his life. I believe a woman interviewed him. I'll try to find the reference for you.


Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

Here is a transcript of a letter from Newhouse to Fran Ridge dated 5/29/99:

"The air force never returned my original film - I got only a poor quality print back from them and it was of less than half of the film I sent them.
"Some 'excellent footage' will be welcome."


As we know, in 1952 Newhouse requested his original back after the copy he had already received (as part of an agreement he made with the AF) was damaged by him.

In his request, he mentions nothing about half the footage missing.

I think there is another reference as well. I will post if I find it.

Lance said...

Yes, Fran Ridge (who interviewed Newhouse extensively) states:

"He and his wife both reported seeing some of the objects relatively close-up and they were shaped like one plate inverted atop another. When the film was returned to Newhouse following Navy and Air Force analysis, the frames showing the discs close-up had been deleted."


KRandle said...

Lance -

Sorry, no. Fran tells me that Newhouse did not confirm that for him... it is derivative of the McDonald letter as well. He said that Newhouse had stuck to his guns on everything he had said but did not mention twenty feet of his film missing.

We are back to all these claims being derivative of the McDonald letter.

Lance said...


What about the letter I posted above from Newhouse In which he says half the footage was missing?

Have we any any reason to doubt McDonald's straightforward account of his conversation with Newhouse?

I'm not sure how McDonald's account differs from interviews in your books, for instance, which you characterize as first hand?


KRandle said...

Lance -

I will split still another hair here and point out that the Newhouse quote you point to does not really address the comments about the film made by McDonald. The hyperbole here, I believe, belongs to McDonald and not Newhouse.

I will note that we do have evidence that the Air Force cut the film, which is the removal of the vacation footage and really doesn't matter to us. There were 17 frames, according to the Air Force that were detached, which, as we all know is about a second of film... Blink slowly and you'd miss it. This bit of film seems, again according to what the Air Force said, belongs at the rear... which means it would show a single object and not the whole formation of them.

There are hints that another frame might have been damaged and removed, though this is not clear, and it could suggest that more film was removed. The evidence, however, is against this specuation. This means, I suppose, that 18 frames were detached.

Newhouse's statement in the letter is rather vague, not unlike his descriptions of the craft. It seems, according to the Air Force files that the original was damaged and dry and that Newhouse probably did only receive a copy. The letters seem to indicate that this did not present a real problem in the 1950s, but seems to have become an issue later. The file suggests the Air Force did attempt to meet his demands.

But I will point out that the UFO footage was about 30 feet and the film canisters were 50... The Air force removed 20 feet of vacation and when they sent the priont, it would have been about half the length of the original... in other words, Newhouse was correct... and he was wrong. The 20 feet of vacation footage had been returned years earlier. This could be a simple mistake.

What I was really looking for was Newhouse saying quite specifically that the UFO footage was cut in about half... and yes, what he said in his letter could be interpreted that way. I'd like to see something that confirms what McDonald claimed... It is difficult to figure these things out with the participants in the discussion being dead.

As I say, this is a fine hair, but one that we might be able to resolve is a second source with the precise language can be found.

Lance said...

Ah, found something else:

From Richard Hall, Journal of UFO History Vol. II, No. 2

In an editorial note about the McDonald interview with Newhouse, Hall says:

"About 1959 Newhouse visited the NICAP office in Washington, D.C.. I talked with him at length and asked him a number of questions. He also emphasized to me that he and his wife has distinctly seen the "double-saucer" shape and that when a copy of the film (not the original) was returned to him after analysis, the filmed sequence showing the discoidal shape had been removed."

The McDonald account is not ambiguous so I really have no idea why you might doubt it. I suppose that McDonald and Hall could be lying but I am satisfied that Newhouse was making the claim that the AF removed his close up footage. I can't imagine how you wouldn't be also satisfied now.

The fact that he didn't say it to you is interesting. Who knows why?

I think I have proven that there is NO missing footage of closeup saucers and really we can see almost every frame of film in the available clips on YouTube.

I also think I have shown that Newhouse never made the claims of the saucers being up close until later--not in his original report.

It appears that almost no one interviewed Newhouse so it was awesome that you did.

Happy New Year!


Larry said...

Lance wrote:

"I also think I have shown that Newhouse never made the claims of the saucers being up close until later--not in his original report."

I think possibly you are confusing two different ideas. I think Hartmann might have been confused, as well. The idea that Newhouse FILMED the objects when they were closer and therefore more distinct may not have been in his original claim and may have emerged later. The totally separate idea that he SAW the objects when they were closer and therefore more distinct was implicit in his statements from the beginning. (Otherwise, he would not have been able to attribute any shape at all to them.) The fact that his memory may have been mistaken years later about having filmed the objects at closer range could not have affected his testimony immediately after the sighting to the effect that he had seen the objects when they were closer and therefore more distinct.

If I'm understanding this correctly, his story during the first year or so (before the AF had even returned the film to him) was that from the time he stopped the car and got out (which is when he could have first observed the objects in detail) and the time he got the camera rolling was 2 or 3 minutes. Since the objects were monotonically getting smaller in size during the filming (and therefore getting farther away from the camera) it takes no great imagination to suppose that they were also receding from the camera during the 2 or 3 minutes he was futzing with the camera and film.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I don't see an inconsistency in the story he told around the time the film was actually made.

KRandle said...

Lance -

We had a situation in which it seemed that the McDonald letter was at odds with what Newhouse said. In such a case, I wanted to see corroboration for those claims because they did change the dynamics of the case. There were some vague references in the record from Newhouse but it could be a case of McDonald's enthusiasm getting in the way of the actual words.

The letter to Fran Ridge hinted at it, but really didn't refine it enough. This latest quote, from Dick Hall does show that Newhouse was saying that some of the footage, the best footage had been removed. It does call into question his later statements.

I don't think there was any footage of the objects close up and never really did. The story, as told, seemed to be that the objects were closer but in the process of getting the car stopped and the camera out, they moved off so that in the final analysis we're left of blobs of light rather than disc-shaped objects.

The original statement by Newhouse in the Air Force file leaves a lot to be desired... and the interview conducted by the Air Force intelligence officer is no iimprovement. The description of the objects came about within two years of the sighting. I find nothing to suggest that he said anything to the Air Force about the close up sighting and I'm just no sure how you could talk to the guy and not get that information.

So, we have a sighting that seems to have evolved over the years with additional points added. The documents created at the time seem to show this evolution.

Lance said...

Hi Larry,

As Kevin alludes to, the original statements (and all original documents) don't have any hint of the objects being any bigger than they are in the film.
All the stuff about them being close up at first came later.
The garbled description, which I conceed probably was an attempt to describe discs, doesn't mean he was close up.
Witnesses frequently attribute characteristics to lights in the sky. And here during a great saucer flap, I'll bet I could find quite a few of the same kind of report.

Incidentally, a copy of the film was given to him almost immediately...he somehow destroyed it.
The original footage was in bad shape when he sent it in.
The agreement to supply Newhouse with a copy was something he agreed to,


Thanks for above...we are in complete agreement!


Larry said...

Lance wrote:
"The garbled description, which I conceed probably was an attempt to describe discs, doesn't mean he was close up. Witnesses frequently attribute characteristics to lights in the sky."

And skeptics even more frequently use this non-falsifiable catchall explanation--witness confusion--to explain away a troublesome aspect of a sighting that they would rather not deal with.

I repeat: the documentary evidence (i.e., the film) shows the objects moving away from the observer, monotonically, from the time the filming started. Logically, this would imply that the objects were also moving away some time before the film started, unless Newhouse began filming at the exact moment that they changed direction. That happenstnce is physically possible but an extremely unlikely mathematically singular event. The logical consequence of being closer is that their angular size would be larger to the human eye. That's physics, not psychology. It has nothing to do with the reliability (or lack thereof) of the witness. So once again, a skeptic who wasn't there and has exactly zero evidence to support his hunch ignores the agreement between testimony and documentary evidence and substitutes his own judgment for that of the witness.

Can you really not see that that is suspicious reasoning?

Lance said...


There is no troublesome aspect, I am trying to explain away. So maybe hold off on the accusations since I am happy to answer your question in a civil manner. It is interesting that you never seem to have a problem when the wholesale myth making is in progress as we saw earlier in this thread.

If we can see a change in size of the tiny dots in the film, it is infinitesimal. I realize that we don't have the real film in front of us (you or I) but we also have much better means of looking at such evidence (at least I do and it falls into an area of expertise for me as film editor and FX designer). From the clip we have in hand, the dots are about 3-4 pixels across at the beginning of the film and they are the same size at the end. From my perspective, this doesn't give us any indication of the twenty-fold or greater difference in size that Newhouse (later) claimed happened as he got his camera ready.

In other words, what we have is the evidence itself: tiny dots in the sky.


Lance said...

Oh, forgot to mention that the dots are wider than they are tall so that is certainly where the disc description could have come from.


Anthony Mugan said...

Ultimately the discussion about how much film was detached and from which ends of the film is of purely academic interest and of no bearing in the actual analysis of the film.

The hard data we have is the portion of the film currently in the public domain together with the main points of three analyses by competent groups (the Air Force photo analysts, the Naval photographic analysts and finally Dr Baker's 1956 analysis summarised in his deposition to the House in 1968).

Surprisingly we can definitively conclude that the images are not birds, in line with the results of the above three analyses (surprising in the sense that we can arrive at this conclusion from the current data. It is not surprising at all that the work of the above mentioned three groups 'hangs together' given the quality of the teams involved).

We can also rule out aircraft, balloons, insects, bits of paper, all astronomical phenomena, sun dogs, unusual cloud formations etc. The seismic data suggests that tectonic strain lights are not a credible option in this case either - a possibility not known in the 1950's

Unfortunately we do not have a definitive test for the ETH that could be applied here - the problem of 'positive identification' that has been with us from the early days of this phenomena. In this case all the rest of the information is essentially a single witness visual case together with a lot of attempts to read too much into various comments years made years after the fact. As Kevin has pointed out the same issues also apply, for example, to Dr. Moore's memories around Project Mogul. In a controversial area such as this we need to work with hard quantitative data unless there are very good reasons for taking subject individual impressions seriously - a restriction which cuts both ways.

So, in short, we are left with an 'unknown'. That is actually quite a powerful conclusion.

Lance said...


When you take the various studies done and their conclusions (several of which were that birds could not be ruled out) and then state that we can DEFINITIVELY say that the objects are not birds, you reveal yourself as a non-objective advocate. Which is fine: most UFO believers operate in just that way.

I can't say that the dots we see are definitely birds because I can't go beyond the crappy evidence. But birds are still a possibility despite unsupported proclamations to the contrary.


Don Maor said...

Hi Lance,
Then, do you think they were birds?

Lance said...

Hi Don,

No, I can't tell what they were from the film.
I think birds is still a viable option.


Don Maor said...

Ok Lance, your problem is that you are reaching a completely useless conclusion. Your conclusion is "there is a posibility" for the birds theory. That tells me next to nothing. I would prefer that you use the word "unlikely", or
"likely" for such theory.

Additionally, your problem is that you are considering the poor quality video of youtube (in your own terms, the video is "crappy evidence"). However, the studies of the age apparently based their conclusions on better quality videos, and they did not support the bird theory.

I would also complain about your abusive use of the word "dots", trying to portrait the "dots" as tiny ones, distorting the reality of the video. Frankly, they don't look very tiny, not even in the "crappy evidence" video of youtube. It seems reasonable to think that given that the dots are not so tiny, an analysis of a better quality video would yield safer conclusions, which is what the early studies did.


Lance said...

Hi Don,

Like Anthony, you are cherry picking the study you like. Some of the conclusions were that birds could not be ruled out or that birds were the likely source. All of the studies concluded next to nothing (even with the better quality film).

Yes, I (like you) am limited to the available clip from YouTube. If you have better evidence, then fine--I would be happy to see it. Your demand that everything be called "likely" or "unlikely" shows a basic problem with most paranormal discussion. In this case, at this time, I don't think there is enough evidence either way so I can't blunder into choosing either of your options. Feel free to do so yourself. I can say that "birds" is near-infinitely more likely than flying saucers.

Strange that you have no problem with the way the whole record of this case was distorted (and continues to be distorted at hundreds of web sites) or how Rudiak now attempts to create new mythology around it. Instead you focus upon the problem of calling a dot a dot. I'll just call them bird-sized. Is that better?


Jim Robinson said...

Anthony Mugan hit the nail squarely on the head, to coin a phrase. In the presence of good hard data, any speculation that contradicts that data is pretty irrelevant.

Those "tiny dots" are well above the resolution limit of Kodachrome emulsion. That, plus the indication of good focus evidenced by the range of partially-exposed grains just outside the saturated edges of the images, indicates their roundness or ellipticity is significant. Beyond that, the density measurements prove the images are too bright to be explainable by birds, aircraft, etc. This conclusion can be double-checked by going out with a camera with the same focal length & the same emulsion ( I don't know how common Kodachrome is to find today) on a day with a clear blue sky, and filming any kind of birds you please with the same f-stops Newhouse used; then make the same measurements the Naval Lab did.

The other major bird-killer measurement the Naval Lab made was the angular velocity of the lone object which peeled off and went back in the opposite direction. This turned out to be a little over 2 degrees/second, which, when applied to a curve of linear velocity vs. distance leads to velocities ranging all the way from 66mph @ 0.5mi distance to 1,306mph @ 10mi. & impossible speeds beyond. If the object was as close as 0.25mi., V would be 33mph, thus possibly a bird, but at 0.25 mi. a bird would definitely have been identifiable as such on the frames.

Whether the original film was measured is irrelevant; none of this would be changed significantly. The only possibility of error is if Newhouse had accidentally panned the single object frames. It's hard to imagine an experienced photographer panning against the direction of motion, and of course if he had panned with the motion the derived velocities would be even greater.

As Anthony said, what we are left with is a complete unknown.

Lance said...

The last scientific analysis of the film (Hartmann) concluded that the objects were likely birds. The AF apparently did have a film of birds that looked very similar to the Newhouse film. I would love to see that film.

The cherry picking of the various studies continues with Jim Robinson's post above. By ignoring the unknown variables that frame the speed claim, Robinson comes to a conclusion that he wishes,. Does he establish the a methodology that allows him to prove, for instance, the distance of the objects or that there was no panning action which would invalidate the speed claims entirely? No, but he does confuse the difference between a photographer and a cinematographer. As someone who evaluates footage for a living, I can easily state that Newhouse's skill as the latter are not flattering in this highly unstable piece of film.

Robinson says that it is hard to imagine an experienced photographer panning against the direction of motion. I work with footage of some of the best cinematographers in the country and from my experience, the comment is laughable. Never mind the apparent fact that Newhouse was a photographer not a cinematographer.

Again, we have stepped outside the realm of objectivity and moved into UFO advocacy.


KRandle said...

Lance -

I saw nothing to suggest that Hartmann conducted a scientific analysis of the film. It struck me that he read the Blue Book file and analyzed that... he didn't even talk to Newhouse.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance said...

Hi Kevin,

I think I see your point. Is the analysis of a scientist tasked with reviewing a bit of evidence called a scientific analysis or not?

Hartmann did do an analysis of the film and took into account the previous studies (speaking with at least one principal investigator).

By the way, Hartmann noted in 1968 the stuff we have been talking about concerning Newhouse's changing story. maybe that's why he didn't bother speaking with him?


David Rudiak said...

I’ve been away visiting, so I haven’t had a chance to respond until now to Lance’s points:

1. Lance: “The Air Force made a careful list of each of the 7 shots in the film. The total length is 71 and a half seconds (notice how Rudiak effortlessly inflates this to 75 seconds using conspiracy mathematics).”

“Conspiracy mathematics” and “effortless inflation” in LanceLunyLand is my using OFFICIAL sources other than Lance’s. I certainly did NOT invent the 1200 frame, 75 second length of the film. Kevin already mentioned Hartmann (Condon) using that figure, and that is also exactly the figure used by Dr. Robert Baker: http://tinyurl.com/m5t8b27

"A 35 mm reprint of the Newhouse 'Utah' film was submitted by the Studio to Douglas Aircraft for examination. Visual study of the reprints... revealed the following: the film comprises about 1,200 frames..." [And 1200 frames at 16 f/s = 75 seconds of film.]

This is a MINOR difference of about 60 frames, or 3.5 seconds, or about 5%. It also has NOTHING to do with the details that led the Navy, Baker, and AF (initially) technical analysts to conclude NOT birds nor any other conventional objects.

2. For real “conspiracy mathematics” and “effortless inflation”, see Lance’s statement that there was a “20-fold or GREATER difference in size that Newhouse claimed happened as he got his camera ready.” REALITY: Newhouse said the objects were ~ 30 minarc when first seen, whereas Baker’s analysis showed the largest images were ~5.5 minarc. That’s about a 5-6 fold difference, not “20-fold or greater.” Sheesh! The difference was probably considerably less than that if the objects were receding at the same rate Baker measured on film while Newhouse was getting his camera. (more below)

Similarly, the Navy analysis stated the largest object on film was about 100 ft across if at 5 miles, or about 40% of the angular size of Newhouse’s B-29 size (100 ft) at 2 miles. They also said an object only 50 feet across at this distance should still have sufficient detail to permit identification of major details (whereas no details like “bird wings” could evidently be seen). See: http://tinyurl.com/m5t8b27

3. I’m amazed at how Lance ignores the analyses of the original experts from 1st-generation film copies and instead makes sweeping statements based on his “analysis” of VERY low res YouTube video, probably AT LEAST an order of magnitude poorer image quality. E.g., Lance stated he saw no reduction in image size on the YouTube video, whereas Baker stated the objects diminished in size and angular velocity by about 30% from beginning to end. Likewise Lance said “the dots are wider than they are tall so that is CERTAINLY where the disc description could have come from.” “Certainly”, no less. Lance seems to have a pretty vivid imagination of his own while accusing others of making things up and exaggeration.

4. That being said, Lance’s point about MAYBE MGM displaying the images at movie house 24 f/s speed instead of the original Newhouse 16 f/s I think is a good one, probably correct, though speculative. This would explain most, though not necessarily all, of the difference in length of the footage in the documentary “UFO”. Also in favor of the hypothesis, Baker does say the MGM sent him about 1200 frames of movie, which would seem to indicate they got the whole thing.

5. I also find it ironic that Lance bases almost his whole case against Newhouse on a SECOND-HAND account from McDonald, which McDonald himself in his letter to Art Lundahl (CIA head photo analyst) that he was summarizing his phone conversation with Newhouse based on hastily scribbled notes.

But when Kevin cited Ruppelt's book of Newhouse ~1954 telling him of the "pie-pan" description in his first interview from 1952, he criticized Kevin for using Ruppelt's "2nd-hand" account to bolster the Newhouse film. Welcome again to the DebunkerDouble Standard.

David Rudiak said...

Part 2 of 3
The original summary sent to Blue Book of that interview also gave the description of equally long and wide AND "thin", which was likely an oblique way of describing a disc or pie-pan shape. (Originally Lance ignored the "thin" part.) It also stated that Newhouse's whole family was interviewed. (Why do people keep forgetting this was a multi-witness sighting, not just Newhouse?) Again I ask, where are their statements? And where is a more complete account of what Newhouse said in that interview? (Newhouse said a transcript was made, which would have been SOP for an intel interview.) Does Lance really think Newhouse just mumbled a few words of that telex summary?

6. Finally, Lance continues to ignore the conclusions of the original DETAILED analyses of the film itself by the Navy, AF, and Baker, not statements from Newhouse many years later. The length of the film or what sort of copy Newhouse got is mostly irrelevant (or Anthony Mugan’s “academic"). ALL three analyses concluded the objects were very likely or definitely NOT birds nor any other conventional objects they could think of like planes or balloons. They were much too bright, their motion was all wrong, and they didn’t change luminance like birds would. (Baker emphasized there was absolutely no indication in any frames of birds, such as expected luminance changes with wing flapping. The initial AF analysis also stated pretty much the same thing—see next post.)

Baker’s analysis also indicated that in the short length of the film itself, the objects’ average angular size and speed had decreased by about 30%, which he said was likely because the objects were receding in the distance, as the Newhouses had said. Newhouse filmed about 60+ seconds of footage in several segments (including an aperature change) of the “swarm” of objects, let’s guess over a 90 second period total. (Same number used by Navy analysts) Further he stated it took him 2 to 3 minutes to find and load his camera before he started filming. I’ll make the perfectly reasonable assumption (like Larry) that the objects were likewise receding before filming, therefore closer, and also assume receding at the same rate as measured by Baker. That would mean the objects were AT LEAST 40% closer at first viewing with the more conservative time estimates (2 minutes) before Newhouse started filming, and could easily have been about 70% closer with more liberal time estimates (3 minutes of finding and loading camera)

The key point here is that the film itself (not just Newhouse) indicates the objects were indeed receding and were likely closer when first seen, as Newhouse claimed. In fact, they should have been close enough that the Newhouses should have been able to make out some details of birds, which even the skeptic Hartmann conceded should have been the case. (And this still doesn’t deal with the fact that Mrs. Newhouse saw them much, much further in the distance, because they were traveling in a car, considered them remarkable, and finally got her reluctant husband to stop the car, over a time period, according to McDonald, of approximately one minute. How could she see “birds”, much less be amazed by them, at that distance?)

Let’s put some numbers on the receding birds hypothesis. Hartmann, who thought they were birds, said they couldn’t have been more than about 2000 feet away at the end, because otherwise they would have been flying too fast (referring to the speed of the detached single object), and had to be at least this far away, or the Newhouses would have seen them for what they were if they were much closer. What was left out was Baker’s analysis that the objects had decreased about 30% in size from beginning to end, meaning that they would have been no further than about 1500 feet at the beginning.

David Rudiak said...

(Part 3 of 3)

This would mean while Newhouse was filming the swarm, they were receding at about 300 ft/min, or walking speed. Now I will assume they were receding at the same rate while Newhouse was finding and loading his camera, or 2 to 3 minutes. This would place them 600 to 900 feet closer from when he started filming them at ~1500 feet, or only ~600-900 feet away. 5.5 minarc of the largest object noted by Baker on film (assuming when they were ~1500 feet) translates to 9 to 14 minarc at 600 to 900 feet away, or about a 2 to 3 fold difference from Newhouse’s estimated ~30 minarc. (This is still a significant difference, but a far cry from Lances 20-fold or greater difference.)

The Navy analysis, noted above, indicated about a 12-13 minarc diameter for the largest object on film (98 feet at 5 miles), which for receding objects in a 2-3 minute camera find-and-load period takes object size into Newhouse’s initial ~30 minarc range. (I don’t know the reason for the disparity between the Navy’s and Baker’s largest image size. Maybe Baker was using absolute image size, whereas the Navy was speaking of image size through the zoom lens Newhouse used?)

Another point is that Baker noted that we would need to be dealing with fairly large birds to place them at Hartmann’s assumed distance’s. (E.g., a bird with a 2 foot body would be ~4.5 minarc at 1500.) Assuming them closer at 600-900 feet initially, big birds like this would have been recognizable as birds, which Hartmann conceded was the case, and the Navy also pointed out. This is why Hartmann assumed, like Lance, there was no recession while Newhouse was getting his camera, but as Larry noted, seems a bit unlikely, doesn’t it?

And even if you reject this argument, the fact remains that all three early, detailed analyses by the Navy, AF, and Baker ALL agreed the objects were much too bright and didn’t have the luminance changes expected of birds, like wing flapping. (The Navy also noted extremely high accelerations.) Let’s quote from the AF analysis, (the part Lance ignores while using their MINOR film length analysis difference from my sources to attack me as some sort of nefarious liar):



“If the objects are reflecting, the “fade-in” and “fade-out” are caused by changes in attitude of decidedly NON-SPHERICAL OBJECTS”....

“... they are either NON-SPHERICAL IN SHAPE AND SIMILAR TO BRIGHT METAL IN REFLECTANCE, or else variably self-luminous by some means.

“During this straight line flight [of single object] IT REMAINED REASONABLY UNIFORM IN BRIGHTNESS.” [Translation: No evidence of rapid, rhythmic luminance of wing flapping, which would be EASY to see.]

So, too bright to be birds, either self-luminous, variable brightness objects or non-spherical, METALLIC, FLAT reflecting surface, or perfectly consistent with the Newhouse’s description of metallic, reflecting, “flat” disc shapes when they were seen closer. The Navy analysts and Baker arrived at pretty much identical conclusions: too bright to be birds; metallic reflecting surface or self-luminous; no evidence of luminance changes expected for birds.

In fact, despite more Lance misrepresentations, these three DETAILED studies left little or no doubt that birds could NOT explain what was actually on the film. The switch to “birds” came first with the Robertson Panel, which did short viewings, no real study, a second AF study afterward with no technical documentation published, just say-so in a few documents, and Hartmann in Condon, who also did no technical study of his own, just assumed they were birds

Jim Robinson said...


As Kevin pointed out, Hartmann performed no direct analysis of the images. He merely critically reviewed the reported analyses by the AF Lab, the Naval Lab, and the Douglas Aircraft Co. (R.M.L.Baker,Jr.), all three of whom concluded the objects could not be identified.

Incidentally, your comment that I reached the conclusion I wanted reminded me of the old admonition that "people see UFOs because they want to". Well, I had two sightings within 2 months of each other in 1952, at a time when I considered news accounts of UFO sightings were just amusing oddities. However, I have never seen anything in the 61 years since, despite almost being willing to give my right arm to do so. The only conclusion I reached here is that the people who did examine the hard data knew what they were doing and disproved the bird hypothesis, leaving the objects unknown.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance said...

Rudiak's points are full of the kind of snarkiness that Kevin says he doesn't like so I'll try to avoid that.

1. I concede that I was wrong to criticize Rudiak for this.

2. Yes, I meant to say 10 times not 20. I got the info from the Macdonald letter:

" He repeated his angular-size estimate that has been noted elsewhere, namely,about the comparative size of a B-17 at 10,000 ft. (This comes out to about one-half of a degree, roughly 10 times the maximum angular diameter of any of the images as measured by Baker or Hartmann.)"

3. This point had no informational value. I qualified that I was working with the same footage that all of us have. I do think that modern equipment can do a better job of measuring these kinds of things. If we can happen to get better footage then I would be delighted to see it. 30% is certainly possible but I can't see it by measuring the clip we have.

4. Yep.

5. A complete falsehood-I found and referenced several other accounts of Newhouse saying the same thing. They are posted above.

6. This speculation by Rudiak is reminiscent of his learned treatise on how neoprene reacts to sunlight and presumedly of the same value. It's hundred of assumptions that could be right or could be wrong (unfortunately, while entertaining and voluminous, his neoprene info was completely wrong).

Rudiak accuses me of misrepresentations. This is the same Rudiak who flatly stated that Newhouse never said any footage was missing. And then without missing a beat he jumped in with both feet into the mysterious missing footage conspiracy! Anything is apparently true in conspiracy land if you want it to be.


Anthony Mugan said...

The debates on these pages on specific cases can be very interesting. There have been examples were famous cases have been clearly found wanting and others (such as this one) were the hard data stands up very well to scrutiny.

After a while it becomes more a case study in the psychology of the extremes of the debate - perhaps particularly the extreme sceptical perspective in terms of this specific debate. In this particular case the question 'does the Tremonton film show birds?' can be answered with certainty that it does not, for all the reasons various people have set out above and clearly established (as a matter of fact rather than the purely asserted Robertson Panel position)at the time by competent analysts. It is a shame that this upsets the world view of some.

Without new data there seems little point in further debate with people that can not be persuaded by hard facts.

Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lance said...

So I am interested in looking at this idea of the brightness of the objects seen on the film.

I was trying to work out the photographic variables.

If anyone has any additional information, I would be delighted to hear it.

Here is what I am currently assuming:

ISO: 10
Exposure: 1/30 second
Shutter angle: 203
Speed: 16FPS
70mm lens
Apeture: F8 and F16

My digital camera (a very high end Canon) has a minimum ISO of 50.

To be comparable to ISO 10, I think I should stop down about 2 stops and a little bit more.

Be happy to hear other opinions even from sworn enemies.

I reworked this from an earlier post using what I think is a more accurate shutter angle for the camera.

David Rudiak said...

Not that it matters much, but one oddity of the Newhouse film clip in the documentary "UFO":


...is that it has the 3 segments showing the detached singular object BACKWARD from the way it was originally photographed.

For one, it has the object moving from right to left, whereas Newhouse said it was moving West to East while he faced North and as he tried to hold the camera still, meaning it should be moving left to right. In fact, the initial AF analysis states it WAS moving left to right.

Second, the final of the 3 short segments of the object shows it moving right to the middle of the frame, wherein the movie ends.

But the Air Force analysis table shows that this, the shortest segment, should have been the first of the three segments, not the third. Furthermore, it the text it states that: "the first segment was incomplete, picking up the object near the center of the frame. The second and third passes were complete, from one edge of the field of view to the other."

So in the documentary, the single object sequences END with the object in the middle, halfway through its pass, but in the original film, these sequences BEGIN with the short sequence and the object in the middle.

So reverse motion and reversed sequences. Odd. It looks like somebody along the line splicing the film copy used by MGM completely reversed the singular object sequences by flipping the whole thing 180 degrees.

Jim Robinson said...


I noticed that reversal several years ago when I was able to record the movie on VHS when I found it on a TV channel late one night. I remember thinking at the time that probably Newhouse was confused & actually north of the track, and then sort of forgot about that little detail until you mentioned it just now. It does indeed look like that sequence had been spliced from the wrong end. However, if the sprocket holes are on only one side of the film (8mm film is that way, but I don't know about 16mm), that would have put the sprocket holes on the wrong side, & they wouldn't have matched up with the strip it was spliced to.

Another strange thing I noticed at the time (I haven't looked at the movie lately ... it got to where it wouldn't advance in the cassette & I have never bothered to fix it ) was when I timed the frame-crossing of the object it was always about one second for each complete crossing. That implied an angular velocity of 8deg/sec (if the frame width was about 11mm), but the Naval Lab determination was 2deg/sec. Why the big difference? Of course, The Navy did it a different way; they measured the displacement on each consecutive frame to deduce the velocity.

It's almost as though that whole sequence of the single object had been blown-up 4x then the frame size cut to match the rest of the film for splicing. That would speed up the object but would also enlarge the grain pattern 4x , & close examination with magnification shows it to be about the same. Another oddity ... & why would anyone bother to do that? For what purpose?

Lance said...


I exhaustively explained above how it appears that the film in the documentary was being presented at 24FPS not 16 FPS. Did you miss that post?


Jim Robinson said...


Yes, I understand the speedup from 16fps to 24fps, but that is only a 50% change. It was the 400% increase that puzzled me. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me that showing @24fps would only change an apparent angular velocity from 2deg/sec to 3deg/sec.


Dave said...

A heads-up for Kevin and the blog:

Better late than never, a post linked by currenctencounterslist mentions the Newhouse matter.

He may have seen the ufos in question.


Even if it was not the same objects seen by Newhouse, their similarity to the Tremonton objects as related by JRobinson, who writes that he is physicist, makes this sighting interesting enough.

Dave said...

Ah, I see I was later than I thought.