|
|
| Just off to the side of Utah Highway 10 in Emery County, there’s a “UFO crash site”. |
By Todd Tanner
Fox 13 Now 7-21-21 |
Showing posts with label Utah. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Utah. Show all posts
Monday, July 26, 2021
The 'UFO Crash Site' in Emery County
Monday, November 30, 2020
Utah's Mystery Monolith Has Disappeared
|
|
| Here is our official statement on the rumors surrounding the "#Monolith:" We have received credible reports that the illegally installed structure, referred to as the “monolith” has been |
By BLM / Utah
11-29-20 |
Continue Reading ►
See Also:
Mysterious Object Found in Utah by Highway Patrol – PHOTO
Is 'Mystery Object' a Space Weapon? | VIDEO
Scientists Rule Out 'Mystery Object' As Meteorite
Mystery Object Falls From Sky, Area Sealed Off By Military | UFO NEWS
Mystery Object Called Inter-Planetary Craft
11-4-1957
UFO NEWS | VIDEO: Mystery Object Nearly Causes Mid-Air Collision Above Denver; FAA Launches Investigation!
UFOs & NUKES | Mystery Object 'Visited' Nike Site, Army Told
VIDEO: Mystery Object Discovered in Receding Texas Lake is 'Debris from Shuttle Columbia,' says NASA
REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE
Monday, November 23, 2020
Mysterious Object Found in Utah by Highway Patrol – PHOTO
| |
| Not since a monolith was found on the surface of the moon in Stanley Kubrick's classic "2001: A Space Odyssey" has a mystery object confounded the greatest minds of our generation. |
Jeff Tavss
Fox 13 11-20-20 |
[...]
Continue Reading ►
Did you know that @utahdpsaerobureau helps @utahdwr with counting big horn sheep every year? During the count they came...
Posted by Utah Highway Patrol on Friday, November 20, 2020
See Also:
Is 'Mystery Object' a Space Weapon? | VIDEO
Scientists Rule Out 'Mystery Object' As Meteorite
Mystery Object Falls From Sky, Area Sealed Off By Military | UFO NEWS
Mystery Object Called Inter-Planetary Craft
11-4-1957
UFO NEWS | VIDEO: Mystery Object Nearly Causes Mid-Air Collision Above Denver; FAA Launches Investigation!
UFOs & NUKES | Mystery Object 'Visited' Nike Site, Army Told
VIDEO: Mystery Object Discovered in Receding Texas Lake is 'Debris from Shuttle Columbia,' says NASA
REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE
Monday, October 15, 2018
What is Really Happening at the Skinwalker Ranch?
Hunting the Skinwalker
| It was after uncovering some disturbing information about the Skinwalker Ranch owned by Robert Bigelow that I began to have doubts about the real purpose behind the MUFON-BAASS project. Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space Studies (BAASS) is an aerospace company allegedly involved in discovering novel and cutting edge space technologies and contracted MUFON in 2009 to perform UFO investigations on its behalf. In the following email to the MUFON Board of Directors, I summarized my research findings and my misgivings about any further relationship with BAASS. |  The UFO Chronicles 2-8-2011 |
Note that this email has been modified to remove identifying information about the confidential source here called Brad Newton who is still under a non-disclosure agreement from his work with the now defunct National Institute for Discovery Sciences (NIDS), also an organization founded by Robert Bigelow.
CONFIDENTIAL – DO NOT FORWARD – FOR MUFON BOARD ONLY – HIGHLY SENSITIVEJohn Schuessler responded with the following email:
Gentlemen,
Since taking on the MUFON International Director position, I have been in observation mode trying to understand the true nature of the UFO phenomenon. In 2007 I personally financed a “meeting of the minds” in Fort Collins to try and gain insight into what the status quo was in Ufology. I have personally investigated high level cases such as Kinross and the California Drones and have found myself on the receiving end of a constant flow of disinformation. What I have observed over the last three years seriously disturbs me.
It is my belief that there are forces at work here that “manage” Ufology for their own purposes. When an organization like MUFON starts to operate outside of the box “they” intend to keep us in, then these controlling forces move in to tighten their grip. Case in point is MUFON’s relationship with BAASS. Although John (Schuessler) knows who BAASS’ sponsors are, I am no longer comfortable with the MUFON-BAASS relationship. Let me explain in detail.
Just last month, I financed my own trip to Utah with Dr. Frank Salisbury who was looking to republish his book “The Utah UFO Display” and was looking for new material to add. Since the book covered the Uintah Basin in North East Utah where the Bigelow Skinwalker Ranch is located, Salisbury sought and was denied access to the Ranch. I also asked and was denied access. Instead, we spent our time interviewing new witnesses around the Ranch. Our contact person was Brad Newton (real name withheld) who has researched the area for many years. What I learned from Brad is what has led to the doubts I now harbor.
Brad worked with NIDS on the ranch and mentioned that after an alleged sighting, metal rods were found on the ranch that were sent to NIDS for analysis. Brad was in contact with a NIDS scientist who informed him that the rods were made from Element 115 and did not originate on earth, and that he (the scientist) had worked at Area 51 on a reverse engineering project where they had accumulated 300 pounds of this material. This in a nutshell is the Bob Lazar story.
Through Dr. Salisbury, we were able to interview the brother of the original owner of the ranch who sold it to the Shermans who subsequently sold it to Bigelow. The ranch owner’s brother was adamant that there was no UFO or strange activity on the ranch prior to the Sherman’s purchase, contrary to what was discussed in the Skinwalker Book and that he (the owner’s brother) had personally received a call from Bigelow trying to convince him otherwise. I found this to be extremely odd and disturbing. I also subsequently learned of a business relationship between Lazar and Bigelow (documented in the MUFON archives).
What I see in the MUFON-BAASS relationship is active management of MUFON’s work, despite assurances from BAASS otherwise. By carefully controlling the purse strings with each contract evaluation period, they are ensuring they receive a constant flow of information from MUFON while also making sure that MUFON does not end up with operational funding to stabilize its long term financial well being. Who’s on the receiving end of this information? Since that will not be disclosed to MUFON, I cannot state for sure, but I don’t feel confident that the information is being used for what MUFON was originally informed.
If you were able to listen to my speech at the Symposium or read my paper in the Proceedings or read my blog, then you know where I stand on the active management and control of information on the part of governmental or quasi governmental forces in our work. Conspiracy theory? Yes. Plausible? Yes.
MUFON has an obligation to the public to fulfill its mission. I for one believe that we cannot adequately do so as long as we are actively managed, nor can I in good faith stand by while this is happening. Those are my personal feeling however and as such I don’t want to speak for the organization when making the decision to renew or terminate our contract with BAASS. I leave it to the Board for a decision on this.
I have already stated my decision to step down as the International Director, and in large part my decision has been based on my research. I will continue to work within MUFON and for MUFON’s long term viability, but I will not stand by and be managed. My time will be better spent actively uncovering the trail left by the forces of disinformation and my efforts focused on uncovering the truth. In the end that is all that is important.
Sincerely,
James
James,My email response to John follows:
I am concerned for you if you are basing decisions on what Brad has said. It is not my intent to argue the point, but the whole Element 115 thing is pure bunk. Don't take my word for it, just ask any scientist. Both CSICOP scientists and MUFON scientists like Stanton Friedman have thoroughly debunked Lazar's Element 115 story. If you could get Element 115 (or Elements 114 and 116) to be stable enough to make them into rods, they would make extremely heavy rods. I can find no one except Bob Lazar and now Brad that believes there are Element 115 rods anywhere, let alone dumping them out on the ground in an uncontrolled environment on a ranch in Utah.
As for the rods found on the Skinwalker Ranch, I was on the NIDS Scientific Advisory Board back in those days and can verify that rods were found. They were not heavy Element 115 rods. Instead, they were thin carbon rods that are used in arc lamps to make very bright lights in field operations. I have personally used this type of rods in arc lamp operations many years ago.
John
Hi John,It was after this email exchange that the MUFON Board bypassed me as acting MUFON International Director and secretly engaged BAASS in renegotiating the MUFON-BAASS contract while purposely keeping me out of the loop. As you can see from the email exchange, this secretive communication was altogether unnecessary because I deferred to the majority decision of the MUFON Board.
That is my point exactly. Lazar and element 115 are bunk but it appears to me that the NIDS scientist was promoting it to Brad. Why? I found Brad to be honest in his demeanor and he is held in high esteem by everyone we came into contact with including many of the witnesses we interviewed. Brad has no motive for promoting the Bob Lazar story but it was communicated to him nonetheless.
Actually, it was the former ranch owner’s brother’s assertions that cemented for me that something is amiss. The Skinwalker ranch story did not play out as described in the book and that coupled with us being denied access does not add up for me.
I can only conclude that BAASS is at someone else’s beck and call. The Board does not need to agree with me on this, which is why I am leaving the contract renewal response to the Board.
Best wishes,
James
Unethical behavior on the part of the MUFON Board aside, the following questions still beg for answers: What is really happening at the Skinwalker Ranch and why are serious investigators being denied access? Why was a NIDS scientist pushing the Bob Lazar story which is a known farce? Why does the book “Hunt for the Skinwalker” describe paranormal activity present on the ranch prior to the Shermans purchasing it when a close surviving relative of the former owner denies such activity? Why is the truth about activities on the ranch being censored through non-disclosure agreements?
It appears that once again in Ufology there are more questions than answers; common fare for a field where the waters are muddied but never cleared. If you consider yourself a truth seeker then perhaps it is time to take a stand against these forces of ambiguity that seek only to obscure the truth rather than bring it to light. It is time to promote truth and not mystery in a field that has too many mysteries already. It is time to reveal the truth by not compromising ethics or principles or by allowing truth to be censored. It is time to stop falling prey to fear and lies but instead to hunt the Skinwalker forces of deception in their own territory. Who is up for a hunting trip?
Editor's Note: As most know, James Carrion is the former International Director of MUFON. Given the renewed interest in the Skinwalker Ranch precipitated by Jeremy Corbell's documentary, based on George Knapp and Colm A. Kelleher book of the same name, Hunt for The Skinwalker, we re-present James' article on the ranch and his involvement originally published in 2011-FW
Monday, June 19, 2017
CIA Photo Analyst Authenticates UFO Film | UFO CHRONICLE – 1976
| Arthur Lundahl, the government's top photo interpreter who told President Kennedy that Russian missiles were in Cuba, says he's seen a film of UFOs which he believes is totally genuine. | The National Enquirer 9-14-1976 |
Lundahl, 61, studied the original UFO movie film shot in Tremonton, Utah, by Navy photographer Delbert Newhouse in 1952. His conclusion: These were indeed UFOs.
See Also:
The CIA’s Actual Involvement with UFOs: The Agency’s Public Statements are Deliberately Deceptive
How the CIA Views the UFO Phenomenon
Dr Bruce Maccabee and the CIA
Ex-CIA Official Says Stories of Crashed UFOs and Little Gray Men “on Ice” Discussed at a High-Level
REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE
Wednesday, October 05, 2016
UFOs Break From Group, Appear To Go Down
 |
 |
| Mr. Ellis said that the luminous discs behaved like radio-controlled objects. The observers reported that two discs suddenly broke loose from the rest ... careening southward at terrific speed on a gradual slant toward the earth. (Click on image[s] to enlarge). |
| Mr. Ellis said that the luminous discs behaved like radio-controlled objects. The observers reported that two discs suddenly broke loose from the rest ... careening southward at terrific speed on a gradual slant toward the earth. | The Salt Lake Tribune 7-7-1947 |
* Special Thanks To Kay Massingill & The Magonia Exchange Project
See Also:
Army Reveals It Has Flying Disc Found On Ranch in New Mexico
Pilot Recalls Seeing Discs
Flying Discs Manned By Beings From Outer Space, Says Navy Man
REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE
Wednesday, September 14, 2016
UFO Photographed Over Salt Lake City
|
| A Utah witness at Salt Lake City reported watching a “black, disc-shaped” object that split into three objects, moved back as one object, and then quickly flew out of sight, according to testimony in Case 78355 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database. The witness, age 37, his sister, age 24, a 27-year-old brother and two sons, ages 8 and 10, were driving along I-15 just south of Salt Lake City at 9:20 p.m. on August 11, 2016, when the incident occurred. |  By Roger Marsh OpenMinds.tv 9-12-16 |
“I was the first to notice a black object in the sky which seemed to be about three miles away, and about 1,500 feet off the ground,” the witness stated.“I made a joke to my boys to look there was a UFO.”
... The object then began to quickly move away.
“It then seemed to pick up speed continuing north towards Ogden. Within seconds it was gone. My brother and I both thought the object was about 500 yards across and about half that tall. We all at first were not excited about what we were watching, but slowly realized it was no cloud and then when there were three horizontally and evenly spaced apart about 600yards we became real excited and kids a little scared. I don’t know what it was, but I know it was unusual. There was never a light on the objects. Just black.” ...
Monday, August 29, 2016
Cylinder-Shaped UFO Reported Hovering Over West Jordan, Utah
| A Utah witness at West Jordan reported watching a cylinder-shaped UFO hovering while it changed colors before slowly moving away, according to testimony in Case 78051 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database. The witness was a passenger in a vehicle at 7000 South and Redwood when the driver first noticed two lights hovering under 500 feet. | By Roger Marsh OpenMinds.tv 8-22-16 |
The witness was able to describe the object better once they approached it.
“As we got closer, between the two bright, white lights was a cylinder-shaped figure. It turned into a glowing purple, and then slowly turned red, and then blue. As we passed I looked behind me to watch. Then it slowly started moving towards the northern side of Utah while changing into the three colors. Then I looked away. I felt very excited and shocked. I couldn’t believe my own eyes.”
Sunday, March 27, 2016
Did FAA Redact Audio File of Pilot UFO Sighting?
They do it for our own good
| Props to Green Bay QB Aaron Rodgers for sharing a detailed and provocative account of a 2005 UFO sighting in New Jersey. The story blew up in the sports world, even though we all know that if Blaine Gabbert or Josh Freeman had gone public with similar tales, and perhaps with even more material evidence, nobody would’ve bothered to yawn. Still, Rodgers’ story will dissolve into more immediate noise and be forgotten soon enough. Meanwhile, researchers who keep trying to hold government accountable will continue their labors in obscurity. |  By Billy Cox De Void 3-25-16 |
Which brings us to this week’s question: Did the Federal Aviation Administration redact key portions of an audio file concerning an airline crew sighting of a UFO over Utah on January 14? That’s the not-even-mildly shocking allegation being made by retired meteorologist and researcher William Puckett, who regularly combs Uncle Sam’s radar files for weird stuff. And he’s pretty jazzed about what he found out. In fact, says Puckett, “This may be the best radar-visual case I’ve ever worked.”
It was a chance discovery, made by a nightowl Utah ham operator who randomly listened in on cockpit chatter between pilots and Air Traffic Control two months ago. He contacted Utah’s state MUFON director, who in turn brought Puckett into the conversation. Puckett queried the FAA for whatever he could get. Beaucoup data came back, enough for a reconstruction of events. The plane turned out to be an Airbus 321, aka American Airlines Flight 434. It was on the way to Philadelphia from San Francisco. Things got interesting shortly after midnight MST. That’s when the ham operator, Pat Daniels, said he heard 434 ask ATC if they were scoping a brightly illuminated bogey, somewhere below their cruising altitude of 31,000 feet. Daniels heard two bursts of dialogue spaced about a minute apart. He said ATC told the crew it had no radar on it. But that’s not true.
Puckett, whose analysis is available at his UFOs Northwest website, not only recovered the bogey’s radar tracks through FOIA. He created an animated version of those peculiar pingbacks, which cropped up in 434’s vicinity from 12:08 to 12:15 a.m. With each 12-second sweep of the radar, an object or objects got painted above Interstate 15, a few miles south of a sleepy little blip called Nephi, population 5,500. In stark contrast to the linear northeasterly course of Flight 434, the unidentified target followed an incoherent path, popping up here and there like a meth-addled whack-a-mole.
Puckett received 41 seconds of radio chatter from the FAA, recorded between 12:12 and 12:13. He posted that on his site too, but it doesn’t entirely square with what Daniels insists he heard. Flight 434 asks ATC if it’s tracking a “bright orange square.” ATC hesitates, then replies, “Uhhm, no, that’s a good question, I’m not sure what – is it off to your right side?” 434 says “It’s apparently off our nose right now” and “we’ve been watching it for awhile” and “I don’t know what it is, it’s a perfect, uh, square, it’s bright orange.” 434 asks what town they’re skirting at “2 o’clock low.” ATC says Nephi. And that’s it. No mas.
Puckett says he could’ve obtained an even more detailed profile on the mystery — like target altitude, maybe — if military bureaucrats hadn’t tightened the rules on releasable radar material a few years ago. But that’s another story. Right now, Puckett wonders, if ATC wasn’t monitoring anything unusual, why did it ask 434 if the bogey was off its right side? Because that’s exactly where it was, according to the radar map. Puckett says radar indicates ATC was locked in the whole time, and he points to a gap in the voice-recording spectrogram which — he says — indicates a block of dialogue was scrubbed out.
Puckett’s report goes on to scratch balloons, drones, false echoes, military ops, etc., from the suspect list, and again, you can run through all that on his web page. It’s worth a pause. And it raises this question: Is resolving the apparent spectrogram discrepancy worth the effort? Maybe. But not for De Void. De Void has pretty much given up on bureauville. De Void can’t even get U.S. Customs and Border Protection to declassify a UFO video that’s been on the Internet for three years.
But let’s step back for an even broader demoralizing framework, courtesy of the Associated Press. They ran with this lead on March 15, during the annual “Sunshine Week” update on the shabby state of government transparency: “The Obama administration set a record for the number of times its federal employees told disappointed citizens, journalists, and others that despite searching they couldn’t find a single page requested under the Freedom of Information Act.”
In other words: The feds couldn’t produce squat for one of every six FOIA requests that rang their customer-service bells last year. Want more? No? Seventy-seven percent of their responses either laid goose eggs or contained partially censored information — that’s 12 percent higher than Obama’s first year in office. Worst (apparent) offender? The EPA office supervising New York and New Jersey. Those working stiffs couldn’t find what people asked for 58 percent of the time.
The Customs department looks like Boy Scouts next to that; Customs was worthless just 34 percent of the time. And one more thing: To its credit, Customs admitted to De Void that it actually did find the Aguadilla UFO footage during its records search. They just have no intention of releasing it, even though it’s been seen more than 56,000 times on YouTube. What’s a good 50-cent word for that sort of spitefulness – contumacious?
Anyhow, William Puckett, good luck working the FAA. You’re a better man than I am.
American Airlines Pilot Reports UFO? | VIDEO
| This case was reported to me by Erica Lukes who is the director of MUFON for the state of Utah. She knows a radio show host (Pat Daniels) who was scanning communications between aircraft and the FAA shortly after midnight on January 14, 2016. He heard a conversation between an airline pilot and Air Route Traffic Control. | William Puckett www.ufosnw.com 2-6-16 |
The pilot reported seeing an extremely large bright object that he estimated a mile wide to his right. The air traffic controller told him that he was looking in the direction of Nephi, Utah. Apparently the air traffic controller told the pilot that the object was not detected on radar. The object appeared to keep pace with the aircraft.
A Freedom of Information (FOIA) request was written to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). About six weeks later we received a response to the FOIA. The response consisted of radar returns, voice tapes and tower logs. The FAA is to be commended for their full and timely response to our request. [...]
Sunday, October 18, 2015
'Blue Glowing' UFO Captured on Video Over Sandy, Utah
A Utah witness at Sandy reported watching and videotaping a “blue glowing object” hovering in the sky, according to testimony in Case 70772 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database.
The witness first observed the object at 9:30 p.m. on September 20, 2015.
“I observed an object in the sky that was not moving at all,” the witness stated. “It appeared very far in the distant sky and had a blue glow color.”
The witness then went inside to get a camera.
“As I began to take pictures it began to move across the sky. I heard no noise, or saw no trail. It was a mostly a cloud-less night, and I saw other stars in the sky, and this was definitely different than a star as it appeared blue rather than white like a star.”
The witness and his family watched the object for about 15 minutes. [...]
Continue Reading ►
See Also:
UFO NEWS | VIDEO: Bright Blue Light and Explosion Over The Carolina's; "I Thought The Aliens Were Coming," Said Local Resident"
UFO NEWS | UK - Bournemouth: Mysterious Blue Spheres Fall From Sky
Police Officer Claims Flashing Blue Light was UFO | UFO NEWS
REPORT YOUR UFO EXPERIENCE
Sunday, September 13, 2015
Orb UFOs Videotaped, Not Balloons, says MUFON | VIDEO
A Utah witness at Salt Lake County reported watching and videotaping four orb-like objects moving in the opposite direction of the wind, according to testimony in Case 64303 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database.
The witness was standing outside about 6:40 p.m. on March 29, 2015, when the objects were first seen.
“I first saw four objects together,” the witness stated. “Then one left and then the other. The other two stayed stationary.”
The witness then began videotaping the event (seen above).
“They slowly drifted east until out of sight.”
Utah State Director Erica Lukes and State Section Director Heather Giesen investigated and closed the case as an Unknown.
“At first he thought they might have been balloons, but began to realize they were not moving with the wind,” the investigators stated in their report. “After reviewing the weather data which states that the wind was moving in the opposite direction of the objects, and speaking with the witness at length and reviewing the video, these objects are not behaving in the way weather balloons or Google Loon balloons do.” [...]
Thursday, June 25, 2015
UFO Appears to Morph Shape
| By Roger Marsh OpenMinds.tv 6-23-15 |
A Utah witness at St. George reported watching a “hovering, bright, white orb under 500 feet altitude being observed by a stationary helicopter at 10:30 p.m. on June 17, 2015, according to testimony in Case 66546 from the Mutual UFO Network (MUFON) witness reporting database.
The witness was sweeping leaves off of a back patio and talking on the phone when the sound of a hovering helicopter could be heard off in the distance.
“I looked up and observed a clear view of a typical commercial or civilian-type helicopter hovering over the adjacent residential and commercial area no higher than approximately 500-1,000 feet from the ground, northwest of my vantage point no more than one-quarter mile away,” the witness stated. . . .
Friday, October 03, 2014
UFOs Spotted After Fireball Episode
Unusual ‘white dots’ spotted in Utah skies after bright morning light show
By Ashton Edwards
fox13now.com
10-2-14
SALT LAKE CITY – Are you seeing unexplained “white dots” in the sky?
You’re not the only one.
The Fox 13 newsroom phones are lighting up with calls from viewers wondering what they are and where they came from.
Mystery Fireball Lights Up The Utah Sky | VIDEO
Mystery Fireball Lights Up The Utah Sky
By Mia De Graaf
www.dailymail.co.uk
10-12-14
• Utah residents reported flashing white, blue, green lights at 4.40amWith dazzling flashes of green, blue and white, a mysterious object lit up the Utah sky early this morning.
• Some listed the sighting on UFO Stalker, object 'lingered moving slowly'
• But astronomer claims it was a burning meteor too far away to hear
It silently soared over the state at around 4.40am, seemingly lingering for a few seconds.
But while some excitedly rushed to report a UFO, one astronomer claims it was a burning meteor that was so far away it couldn't be heard.
A video captured the a burning white ball's passage through the sky.
Seconds later, neighbours took to Twitter reporting flashes of blue and green . . .
Monday, December 30, 2013
Newhouse's Tremonton, Utah UFO Movie (Pt 2)
+(400+px)+7-2-1952.jpg "Newhouse's Tremonton, Utah UFO Movie (Pt 2)")
.jpg)
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.
Sunday, December 15, 2013
Newhouse's Tremonton, Utah UFO Movie Revisited
I hadn’t planned on doing this simply because it was more work at this point than I wanted to take on, but there seems to be a real interest in the film and there is a lot of misinformation floating around about it. These are distortions that I believe are lodged in the belief structures of the various commentators rather than in the facts of the case. I’m using as many of the original sources as possible, including the reports of others who interviewed the photographer after the event, sometimes years afterwards and will point out that when I interviewed him, I just wanted to confirm that he had told others what they had reported he told them.
The film was shot by Navy warrant officer Delbert C. Newhouse north of the small Utah town of Tremonton, Utah (though it has been spelled Trementon by many over the years). He provided a brief statement to the Air Force about the case that is woefully inadequate and I’m not sure why no one in the Air Force attempted to get something a little more comprehensive from him about the shape of the objects. According to the Project Blue Book files:
Driving from Washington, D.C. to Portland, Ore., on the morning of 2 July my wife noticed a group of objects in the sky that she could not identify. She asked me to stop the car and look. 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. I opened the luggage compartment of the car and got my camera out of a suitcase. Loading it hurriedly, I exposed approximately thirty feet of film. There was no reference point in the sky and it was impossible for me to make any estimate of speed, size, altitude or distance. 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, picking it up again and repeating for three or four such passes. By this time all of the objects had disappeared. I expended the balance of the film late that afternoon on a mountain somewhere in Idaho.When he finished with the filming, he put the equipment away and they all got back in the car to continue the trip. Then, apparently after arriving at his new duty station, developed the film and sent the original off to Hill Air Force Base in Utah which eventually sent it on to Project Blue Book in Dayton, Ohio. According to the Condon Committee report (on page 420 of the Bantam paperback edition) William Hartmann, the investigator wrote, “The witness’s original letter of 11 August offers the film for whatever value it may have in connection with your investigation of the so-called flying saucers.”
And while all that is interesting, it turns out not to be the most important thing in that letter. Newhouse wrote, “(1) one (1) fifty-foot roll of processed 16mm color motion picture film.”
Ed Ruppelt, the chief of Project Blue Book at the time wrote, “When I received the Tremonton films I took them right over to the Wright Field photo lab, along with the Montana Movie [a short, black and white film shot over Great Falls in 1950 showing two bright lights], and the photo technicians and I ran them twenty or thirty times. The two movies were similar in that in both of them the objects appeared to be large, circular lights – in neither one could you see any detail. But, unlike the Montana Movie, the lights in the Tremonton Movie would fade out, then come back in again. This fading immediately suggested airplanes reflecting light, but the roar of a king-sized dogfight could have been heard for miles and the Newhouse family heard no sound.”
The inadequate statement provided in the letter with the film didn’t tell much and according to Ruppelt, they sent a list of questions to an intelligence officer. This interview was conducted on September 10, 1952, and included not only Newhouse, but his wife, Norma; son, Delbert Newhouse, Jr. then aged 14 and daughter Anne, then aged 12. This interview did nothing to clear up the questions that we would have so many years later and, according to Ruppelt, “The question ‘What did the UFO’s look like?’ wasn’t one of them because when you have a picture of something you don’t normally ask what it looks like.”
The answers to the questions were received by teletype on September 12 and do little to resolve the questions of today. I don’t know why certain things were not asked and why certain information is not found in the files. While Ruppelt explained why they hadn’t asked what the objects looked like, I also noted that there is no real description of the length of the film. Going through the Project Blue Book files, I found a few, vague references to the film being about thirty feet long, which, given the frames per second rate, works out to about 75 seconds. William Hartmann, who conducted the investigation for the Condon Committee in the late 1960s, wrote, “The film contains about 1200 frames… i.e. about 75 seconds…”
According to the teletype, all the Newhouses were interviewed at home and the answers to the questions were as follows:
1. No sound heard during the observation.From this point, the Blue Book file is filled with questions about the technical aspects of the film and the camera. On one document, in which it was revealed that Newhouse had not used a tripod, someone underscored that and added an exclamation point.
2. No exhaust trails or contrails observed.
3. No aircraft, birds, balloons, or other identifiable objects seen in the air immediately before, during, or immediately after observation.
4. Single object which detached itself from the group did head in direction opposite original course and disappeared from view while still traveling in this direction.
5. Camera pointed at estimated 70 degrees elevation and described and [sic] arc from approx. [sic] due east to due west then from due west to approx. 60 degrees from north in photographing detached obj [sic] heading in direction opposite original course.
6. Sun was approx overhead of observer. Objects were approx. 70 degrees above terrain on a course several miles from observer.
7. Weather conditions: Bright sunlight, clear, approx. 80 degrees temperature, slight breeze from east northeast approx. 3 to 5 mph.
8. No meteorological activity noted during that day.
9. Opinion regarding objects following CLN [sic] A. Light from objects caused by reflection: B. Objects appeared approx. as long as they were wide and thin, C. Appeared identical in shape, D. 12 to 14 objects, E. All appeared light color, F. No opinion, G. Appeared to have same type of motion except one object which reversed its course, H. Disappeared from view by moving out of range of eyesight.
10. No filters used. 11.
One low hill 2 or 3 miles to right of US HWY 30 dash S with observer facing north. Located approx. 10 miles north of Tremonton, Utah.
12. Other persons sighting object [names of wife, children]. Whole Newhouse family included in interview.
13. CPO [sic s/b CWO] Newhouse and family have never sighted unidentified flying objects before. Newhouse stated that he never believed he would join the ranks of those reporting such objects prior to this observation… CPO [sic] Newhouse stated he has been in the Naval service for over 19 years with service as a commissioned officer during WW 2…
The Air Force analysis, done in the months following the sighting, did not yield any positive results. According to Ruppelt, “All they had to say was, ‘We don’t know what they are but they aren’t aircraft or balloons, and we don’t think they are birds.”
It would seem that the next time that Newhouse was interviewed about the sighting in depth was when he met with Ruppelt as they were shooting the commercial film Unidentified Flying Objects, aka UFO. Ruppelt wrote about that meeting in his book The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects. Ruppelt said:
After I got out of the Air Force I met Newhouse and talked to him for two hours [in 1954, I believe]. I’ve talked to many people who have reported UFOs, but few impressed me as much as Newhouse. I learned that when he and his family first saw the UFOs they were close to the car, much closer than when he took the movie. To use Newhouse’s own words, “If they had been the size of a B-29 they would have been at 10,000 feet altitude.” And the Navy man and his family had taken a good look at the objects – they looked like “two pie pans, one inverted on the top of the other!” He didn’t just think the UFO’s were disk-shaped; he knew that they were; he had plainly seen them. I asked him why he hadn’t told this to the intelligence officer who interrogated him. He said that he had. Then I remember that I’d sent the intelligence officer a list of questions I wanted Newhouse to answer. The question “What did the UFO’s look like?” wasn’t one of them because when you have a picture of something you don’t normally ask what it looks like. Why the intelligence officer didn’t pass this information along to us I’ll never know.The next mention of Newhouse’s experience came in January 1953, when the Robertson Panel, a CIA sponsored study of UFOs was made. Because there was physical evidence available, meaning the film, it was one of those reports they wanted to review. Luis Alverez, one of the scientists involved, asked that the film be run several times and then suggested that the objects looked to him like sea gulls riding on thermals. The rest of the panel agreed with him and that was the answer they appended to the case.
Ruppelt, in his book wrote that they, meaning those at Blue Book and ATIC had thought of the birds explanation months earlier. He wrote, “…several months later I as in San Francisco… and I watched gulls soaring in a cloudless sky. They were ‘riding a thermal,’ and they were so high that you couldn’t see them until they banked just a certain way; then they appeared to be a bright white flash, much larger than one would expect from sea gulls. There was a strong resemblance to the UFO’s in the Tremonton Movie. But I’m not sure this is the answer.”
Also found in the Project Blue Book files, and dated 1955, is a report, “Analysis of Photographic Material Photogrammetric Analysis of the ‘Utah’ Film, Tracking UFO’s,” created for the Douglas Aircraft Company and written by Dr. R. M. L. Baker. He provides an overview of the sighting that is consistent with the earlier reports found in the Blue Book file, but then wrote, “He [Newhouse] described them as ‘gun metal colored objects shaped like two saucers, one inverted over the other.’”
Baker’s conclusion written on May 16, 1956, or nearly four years after the sighting, was, “The evidence remains rather contradictory and no single hypothesis of a natural phenomenon yet suggested seems to completely account for the UFO involved. The possibility of multiple hypotheses, i.e. that the Utah UFO’s are the result of two simultaneous natural phenomena might possibly yield the answer. However… no definite conclusion could be obtained.”
But even this isn’t without controversy. Tim Printy at his skeptics web site wrote:
In 1955, Dr. Robert Baker conducted an evaluation of the film and also interviewed Newhouse again. Newhouse now added more information that seemed to disagree with his earlier testimony.At the same time, that is 1956, the Air Force, in response to the release of UFO, put together a press package to explain some of the cases mentioned in the film. At that point the Air Force endorsed the “birds” explanation, and that is the way it is carried in the Blue Book records. The documents suggest that the Air Force was more interested in lessening the impact of the movie than they were in supplying proper solutions to the cases. In other words, their acceptance of the birds explanation was a public relations ploy.
When he got out, he observed the objects (twelve to fourteen of them) to be directly overhead and milling about. He described them as ‘gun metal colored objects shaped like two saucers, one inverted on top of the other.’ He estimated that they subtended ‘about the same angle as B29’s at 10,000 ft.’ (about half a degree i.e. about the angular diameter of the moon.”
In his earliest reports he stated that he could not estimate size or distance, now he was able to do this as well as describe the shape. Newhouse suggests before filming they appeared overhead and then went off in the distance when he finally got the camera going.
A close reading of the various sources including Ruppelt’s book and the Condon Committee report does not support the conclusion that Newhouse was giving any different answers. Baker’s source seemed not to be a new interview, but what Newhouse had told Ruppelt in 1954 and that Newhouse was not saying the objects were the size of B-29s at ten thousand feet, but looked to be the size of the bomber if it was at that altitude. It was the same as a witness describing a UFO as the size of a dime held at arm’s length.
The next analysis came when the Condon Committee conducted its investigation in the late 1960s. William Hartmann added little of importance to the case. He noted the length of the film, which agreed with the claim that the sequence was about 30 feet long or about 75 seconds. Lance Moody had suggested that if the film could be recovered now, the length could be measured, which would answer some questions that have developed in the last few years. The problem is that Air Force file makes it clear the film had been cut. On September 15, 1952, Major Robert E. Kennedy sent Newhouse a letter saying, “The final footage of the mountain scenery will be detached and returned to you as soon as possible.” This point too, would become important later.
Hartmann reviewed all the information available, including, apparently, a complete copy of the Project Blue Book file. He provided a quick history of the investigations and did mention that during Baker’s earlier investigation Newhouse provided “…substantially the same account, with the additional information: ‘When he got out [of the car], he observed the objects (twelve to fourteen of them) to be directly overhead and milling about. He described them as ‘gun metal colored objects, shaped like two saucers, one inverted of top of the other.’…”
Hartmann then made his own analysis, finally concluding, “These observations give strong evidence that the Tremonton films do show birds… and I now regard the objects as so identified.”
But this comes only after Hartmann rejected the statements by Newhouse seeing the objects at close range. Hartmann wrote, “The strongest negative argument was stated later by the witness that the objects were seen to subtend an angle of about 0.5 degrees and were then seen as gun metal colored and shaped like two saucers held together rim to rim, but the photographs and circumstances indicate that this observation could not have been meaningful.”
Baker, in 1969 and in response to the negative findings of the Condon Committee, at a symposium sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science said that while Hartmann’s analysis might be appealing “[The] motion [of the objects] is not what one would expect from a flock of soaring birds; there are erratic brightness fluctuations, but there is no indication of periodic decreases in brightness due to turning with the wind or flapping. No cumulus clouds are shown on the film that might betray the presence of thermal updraft… The motion pictures I have taken of birds at various distances have no similarity to the Utah film.”
Now the case becomes more complicated. In 1970, Dr. James E. McDonald interviewed Newhouse over the telephone, with his wife on the extension. In a letter to Arthur C. Lundahl and found on the NICAP web site, McDonald wrote:
It was particularly good to have Mrs. Newhouse on the phone, since she was the one who first spotted the objects and watched them for an estimated minute or so while she was trying to persuade Newhouse to stop the car for a better look…There are some things that we can deduce from all this. First, strangely, in the original interviews, there is no indication that anyone asked Newhouse or his family what the objects looked like. The statement he supplied as he submitted the film is devoid of any important information other than time and location. He does not describe the objects in any way other than to say, “…that bore no relation to anything I had seen before…”
Both of them emphasized that it must have taken two or three minutes for Newhouse to hunt through their luggage and locate the camera and film, which were in separate suitcases. In the initial period, the objects were considerably closer to them than at the time he finally began shooting, Newhouse stressed. It was his estimate that the objects lay only about 10 degrees east of their zenith when they first got out of the car. He reported his angular-size estimate that has been noted elsewhere, namely about the comparative size of a B-17 at 10,000ft…
… [O]ne of the key points that I wanted to check with Newhouse concerned the description given by Ruppelt… namely, that they appeared to be silvery-gray, “gunmetal”, and like two pie pans face-to-face. Both Newhouse and his wife fully confirmed that, Newhouse comparing the shape to a discus…
I asked Newhouse if it was correct that he had given that description to Ruppelt after the latter had left the Air Force. He confirmed that, saying that the only time he personally talked to Ruppelt was at a filming session for that movie entitles “UFO” produced in 1954 or 1955. He guessed that meeting must have been in 1954, and Al Chop was also present at that discussion. He brought out the important point that he had also stressed the visually observed shape in those early portions of the sighting, when he was interviewed at his duty station in Oakland by an Air Force officer. He further remarked that he saw a copy of the officer’s transcript of the interview, and that point appeared in the transcript…
…A rather interesting point, which I have never seen brought out before, was mentioned, almost by happenstance. It turned out that the footage which Newhouse submitted to the Air Force was spliced from about 20 feet that he shot at the end of one 50-foot magazine, plus about 40 feet that he shot on the first part of the next magazine. In other words, he had to change magazine in the middle of that shooting…
Newhouse said that the Air Force didn’t send the originals back to him at any time. He wrote ATIC when a long time had elapsed, and what they did finally send back to him was a color print which he stressed was distinctly inferior to the original. Not only that, but he was positive that they had cut out the first 10 or 20 feet, which were shot when the objects were very much closer and appeared much sharper on the film… The missing footage, which he seemed positive was from the earliest and best parts of his original…
I found it interesting to learn that no contacts of any sort have been made with Newhouse since that movie was made. This evidently included Baker, as well as Hartmann and the Condon Project team. I was particularly surprised that Bob Baker had not contacted him…
The point to be made here is that Newhouse had more than 19 years of service in the Navy and it is reasonable to assume that he had seen sea gulls soaring in the past. It would seem that if five minutes or so passed during the sighting, which includes 75 seconds of the filming, sea gulls would have revealed themselves as such at some point. If he saw them at close range, as he claims, then the sea gull explanation fails.
Newhouse told McDonald that he had told the intelligence officer about the shape and that the description had been included in the transcript of the interview. There is nothing like that in the Project Blue Book file, which means one of two things: Either Newhouse is mistaken or the transcript was removed from the files.
Although some believe that Newhouse didn’t mention the shape until more than twenty years later when I interviewed him, it is clear that Newhouse was talking about the shape within two years. He told Ruppelt that he had told that to the intelligence officer, but there is nothing to back up the claim. The best we can say was that he mentioned it in 1954 and was consistent in those statements from that point. His original statement does not preclude the observation, only that it can’t be documented in the Project Blue Book file.
The criticism that Newhouse was unable to give size, distance and shape estimates at first but later came up with them is invalid. It is quite clear he was merely saying that the objects appeared to be the size of a bomber at 10,000 feet. The description he offered the September interview suggests a circular object (or one that is square or diamond shaped and very thin) isn’t very helpful. In fact, given that vague information, it would seem that someone, Newhouse, his wife or children, would have said something more definitive.
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.
First, when he submitted the film, he made it clear there was a single enclosure and that was a fifty foot roll of film. The document was created by Newhouse so there is no reason to dispute it. It says nothing about there being more than fifty feet of film or that it was a spliced film. Just the whole roll that included some of his vacation pictures and that it had been processed.
Second, there is Major Kennedy’s letter of September 15, in which he mentioned the final footage of the mountain scenery would be “detached” and returned. In that same letter, Kennedy wrote, “If it is agreeable to you, a duplicate of the aerial phenomena will be made and forwarded to you in lieu of the original. It is desired to retain the original for analysis.”
Third, on February 17, 1953, Major Robert C. Brown wrote, “A copy of the original movie film taken by you near Tremonton, Utah, on 2 July 1952 is being returned.”
On November 17, 1953, Newhouse wrote to the Air Force, “About a year ago I mailed for evaluation a 16mm Kodachrome original film to the Commanding Officer, Hill Air Force Base in Utah. The film was of unidentified flying objects sighted by my wife, my children and myself… I gave the Air Force permission to retain the original for use in the investigation… My copy of the film has been damaged… If the Air Force has completed its evaluation and has no further use for it, I would appreciate the return of the original…”
On January 27, 1954, Lieutenant Barbara Conners wrote, “The Air Technical Intelligence Center is attempting to locate the original of a 35 mm [sic] film of unidentified flying objects taken by a Mr. D. C. Newhouse near Tremonton, Utah…” and then on February 23, 1954, CWO R. C. Schum wrote, “We are forwarding as Inclosure [sic] 1 one copy of you Tremonton, Utah film...”
This means the Air Force attempted to cooperate with Newhouse and that Newhouse had given them permission to keep the original. They supplied a copy which Newhouse ruined. He asked for the original, and the Air Force attempted to comply. We now know that Newhouse’s discussion of all this with McDonald is in error.
But more important than this trivia about originals and copies is the claim that Newhouse shot footage on two separate rolls and that there was more than sixty feet of film. The documentation, including that written by Newhouse himself does not bear this out. The best estimate is that there was thirty feet of film. There is a suggestion that the film lasted about 75 seconds, and with a 17 frame per second use that works out to about thirty feet of film.
In the end, there is no good evidence that Newhouse altered his story because the original investigation lacked competence. There are hints in the September 1952 interview but it is not very clear. It can be argued that the description is of the saucers but it could also be argued that the description is too vague to be of any real value to determine what he meant. It could be argued that his description was vague because he didn’t get a good, close up look at the objects.
It is clear that by 1954 Newhouse was providing a description that if accurate, eliminates the sea gulls as an explanation. It also seems that others such as Baker and Hartmann took the description from Ruppelt’s book but didn’t attempt to verify the accuracy of the information by contacting Newhouse. In 1976, when I talked to Newhouse, he verified that he had said that, which, of course, doesn’t mean that the description was accurate, only that he said it to Ruppelt.
The one point that seems to stand out here is that Newhouse made the comment in 1954 before the Air Force began pushing the sea gull explanation, but after the Robertson Panel had determined, to their satisfaction, that birds was the answer.
Here, I suppose, it boils down to the nonsense about the length of the film and if Newhouse switched magazines during the filming. Given the documentation available, it seems that these new details do not reflect the reality of the situation. Newhouse himself made it clear there was but a single roll of film, that it was only fifty feet long, and we know that part of it was detached and returned to him. If we wish to reject the case, this seems to be a good reason to do so. It suggests that his memory of the event has been clouded by outside influences.
I will note here that I have not engaged in a discussion of what the film showed or the various analyses of it. All of the investigators seem to find the conclusions that fit their own biases. The Air Force originally said it wasn’t balloons, airplanes and probably not birds. Robertson said it was birds and dismissed it. The Navy said they couldn’t identify them. The Air Force then said it was birds. Baker said he couldn’t identify the objects and Hartmann said he could
So, you look at the evidence, all the evidence, what the witnesses said and did and what the film shows and decide for yourself what to believe. I said in the beginning that this (the last post) was a case that provided some physical evidence. That evidence could lead to proof of something unusual in the air and that terrestrial explanations didn’t cover all the facts, if Newhouse saw the objects close by and that they were saucer shaped. If he didn’t, then the evidence is not as strong as it could be.
To my mind, the case is not resolved simply because there is not a consensus for the solution… but on the other hand, the evidence is not all that strong either, which, unfortunately seems to be the situation in a large number of UFO sightings.
