Here’s
something that is a little frightening for those of us who accept the idea that
some UFO sightings represent alien spacecraft visiting Earth. We have a list of
cases, even if we don’t mention it, that seem, on their face, to be
inexplicable. They have some form of instrumentality involved which means we
are not relying on the observations of the witnesses.
 |
| Ed Ruppelt |
One
of these cases is the film taken near Tremonton, Utah, in July 1952, by Navy Warrant
Officer Delbert Newhouse. It shows a bunch of lights dancing around in a bright
blue sky. At one point, a single object broke away and is seen crossing the
frame in what looks like straight and level flight. Analysis of the film had
suggested some sort of internally lighted objects moving at high speed or that
the objects are birds seen at the extreme range of visibility, giving the
impression of larger, lighted objects. You can sort of take your pick. Newhouse
told Ed Ruppelt, one time chief of Project Blue Book, that he had seen the
objects close up, that they were saucer shaped, or oval, and he had been unable
to get his camera from the trunk before they had moved into the distance. You
can read about it here:
and here
and here
Over
the years, as I have been out and about, driving cross country, standing in the
desert, or hanging around with friends, I have studied the motion of birds. I
have seen flocks of them… huge flocks that were clearly birds, through they had
dark bodies and I could see no wing flapping, as they maneuvered through the
sky. I have watched lone birds, small formations of them, in various lightings
and various locations, and never really saw anything that I couldn’t identify
as birds. All that seemed to be the flaw in the explanation for the Tremonton
Movie. You can watch the film here:
But…
Today,
I was listening to music on YouTube as I worked on something else. This was a
dance video to Haddaway’s “What is Love.” There are two points that are
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPmBnnon0Ek
Had
it not been for that first bird, we all might have been fooled. This video, I
think, was recorded in HD, so that those of us who wished to look closer might
(PS:
Yes, I stopped the video, and I blew it up as large as I could, and yes, in
that mode, the lights aren’t uniform and you can see an image that certainly
could be taken as a bird. Played at full speed, the impression is somewhat
different.)
17 comments:
I'd have to do some digging, but I'm pretty darned sure that 1. this kind of phenomenon has been observed on other occasions, 2. it's been dubbed "strings-of-pearls" or _some_thing like that, and 3. it has been associated with seismic events, suggesting it is some manner of "earth lights" display. Not that attempting to explain one anomalous observation by means of another gets us very far. Maybe other readers can fill in the blanks my lack of time and amnesia have left...
Hello Kevin Randle,
Simply pointing to on my blog article... You will find other examples.
http://skepticversustheflyingsaucers.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-delbert-newhouse-ufo-footage.html
Regards,
Gilles
I have thought about this (off and on) all day. I agree that that one image in the sky during the music video is likely a bird. Beyond that, I cannot tell what the other lights are. The same is true for the Tremonton movie.
These are UFOs. Does not mean they are ET spacecraft and does not mean they are birds, or anything else readily identifiable. As such the Tremonton video (nor the Great Falls, Montana movie of 1950) ALONE do not prove ET visitation. However, Delbert Newhouse and his wife were witnesses to the Tremonton event. Their pro-spacecraft testimony should be taken into account. As such, one cannot accurately state that the Tremonton movie featured birds and is solved.
Like James McGaha once said: "If you see a light in the sky, you've seen a light in the sky. That's all you've seen."
Never forget what the "U" in UFO stands for.
Forget about the UFO stuff, guys. The REAL news here is that Kevin Randle is a fan of 1990’s dance music.
SugarRay -
Naw... just means the mix I was listening to of mostly 60's music featured that video. The similarity between the lights in the Tremonton film and the birds flying behind the dancing women caught my eye... yes, it was the lights that I focused on...
I believe the answer to this sighting is easier than it looks. Yes, it is likely just birds.
Tremonton is just north of Salt Lake City, Utah. Like Salt Lake City, Tremonton is close to the Great Salt Lake. Very close. Tremonton is also near Willard Bay Reservoir which is surrounded by state and national wildlife preserves for migratory and native birds.
It just so happens that the state bird of Utah is the California Gull, a type of sea gull with white feathers.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_gull
In the 1800’s the Mormon settlers were spared a crop infestation by these birds who will eat flying insects. They are typically around farms and can be found foraging for food well beyond any body of water. Hence the state bird of Utah which is mostly desert and arid terrain.
The film clearly shows a cluster of these birds in the air, and if you’ve ever been to the beach you’ll recognize the same unorganized flight patterns.
Being a navy man, I’m sure Newhouse was not anticipating a flock of white sea gulls flying over the desert. As stated by Kevin, the film may be a flock of birds filmed at extreme distance, and if so the sun would likely have illuminated their already white feathered bodies making them appear like balls of light.
So it’s hard to come to the conclusion that these objects are internally lighted flying saucers. The reason being that the location of filming is in fact very close to a large body of water, bird sanctuaries, and that the California Gull, with its white feathers and haphazard flying patterns, is the most prevalent species of native bird in all parts of Utah.
If Newhouse was viewing this from a distance I can see why it may have seemed out of the ordinary. But honestly I’ve seen gulls fly this way at every beach I’ve ever visited where large flocks congregate. At a distance they can appear like white blobs moving up and down or gliding in horizontal paths like the ones Newhouse filmed.
I don’t think Newhouse made up his story saying they appeared to be discs, but the mind plays tricks when illuminated objects in the air appear to be something more than birds. Birds that Newhouse probably didn’t realize were native to Utah and were visually difficult for him to identify at great distance.
Really, Brian -
You don't think that we're all aware of sea gulls in Utah? We don't know that the Mormons were saved by the sea gulls eating the locust?
You realize, of course, that Newhouse, his wife and children all saw the objects at close range. It took a few minutes before Newhouse got the car stopped, the trunk open and his camera out. Newhouse told Ruppelt that the objects were saucer shaped (more of less) but by the time he had the camera fired up, they had moved off, into the distance...
And, let's not forget that Newhouse was a sailor... he'd been around the ocean and had seen sea gulls many, many times..
But I always enjoy you explaining the obvious to the rest of us. Do tell us more about your observations of sea gulls and the beach.
Did you really need to quote that idiot Mcgaha to illustrate that point?
Any chance the video could have been a test for the Navy's video analysis? If I remember, they put in a large amount of hours and were unable to verify the objects. It is interesting that there are no land reference points in the video to properly judge distance.
There’s no need to ridicule Kevin, which often seems to be your “go to place” when someone disagrees with you, or if they’ve reinforced (as I have) that others have concluded differently. As in this case a flock of birds.
Also there’s no need to rehash it again as it’s all right here in your blog.
http://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/12/newhouses-tremonton-utah-movie-revisited.html?m=1
I have to agree with Lance and others (from the previous blog entry) that the evidence does in fact bear out that Newhouse likely formed a more complete “story” in the years proceeding the sighting. Not because he was lying, but because he thought things out in context to the saucer sightings at that time.
Your explanation, as it would seem, is that the initial investigation was flawed and incompetent hence “missing” Newhouse’s description of “pie pans” with a “gunmetal color”, all of which came out well after his sighting.
You’ve concluded that Newhouse saw “discs” based on his post event description, the testimony you say the investigator failed properly collect by failing to ask Newhouse to describe what he actually saw.
You dismiss Newhouse’s failure to initially describe “discs” as the investigator’s incompetence, and as Lance stated previously you’ve chosen to simply “believe” Newhouse based on “faith” he was always describing “discs”.
But even the initial investigation demonstrates there was ample opportunity for Newhouse to say he saw “discs” and get it into the report. After all are we to believe that he just sat there like a rock saying nothing unless asked a question first? Even if the question wasn’t directly asked, wouldn’t you think he might bother to elaborate on what he saw in more detail?
But he didn’t, at least not until much later and in subsequent interviews.
It's always looked like birds to me. I've seen flocks of birds flying similarly and looking the same against a bright blue sky as the "lights" in the Tremonton film.
The problem, Brian, is your need to lecture us on topics with which we are all familiar. There is no need to tell us that sea gulls are found in Utah. We all know that. We know they ate the locust.
And, we don't need your speculation that Newhouse, as a sailor might not have known there are sea gulls in Utah... though we all know this, and Newhouse, familiar with them, would have known this.
And, you don't really know what I think about the case... which, if I had disconfirming evidence, such as the objects in the dance video, I would never have mentioned it.
I pointed out that the initial investigations didn't ask some key questions because those investigators believed that the pictures would answer them.
And finally, we don't need your speculations about what Newhouse might or might not have done, or, for that matter, what the initial investigator might have asked or not asked. The record is there for everyone to read and draw their own conclusions.
I merely pointed out that Newhouse told Ruppelt that the objects had been closer when first sighted, that Newhouse had suggested disks, and that here was a fact (testimony) that can't be rejected simply because you don't happen to like it...
So, I haven't concluded that Newhouse saw disks, only raised the point that he claimed it, some 18 months to two years later while in a conversation with Ruppelt... I also noted that Newhouse suggested there was much more than 30 feet of film when his own, initial letter made it clear that the UFOs were only on part of it.
So, the snarky lectures are unnecessary.
Oh, and I should have mentioned that your link to my earlier post is in the body of the text. And the discussion there doesn't seem to actually match your conclusions. But please continue to pontificate.
Hi Kevin,
I would postulate; could this have been "designed" by the Air Force to maybe test some of their agent's abilities at identifying objects in a video?
I just find it interesting that one of the earliest UFO videos just happened to be captured by an intelligence officer who just happened to have a good video camera with him on a trip through the desert. Particularly, at a time where it was still rare for most people to own a video camera.
Then, you have the video itself which lacks any land shots so one can't reliably determine speed, altitude, etc.
It just seems like a good Military Intelligence test to see how a person would interpret an unknown object.
What Newhouse saw was flock of high flying pelicans. I live in Tremonton and have seen this many times. If he had a proper camera he would have seen that. No UFOs, but UFP. Unidentified flying Pelicans.
You true believers crack me up. It's obviously birds. But then again, maybe it really was an image of the Virgin Mary on my nachos. Too bad I ate them. But I was hungry, and they were delicious.
Post a Comment