Documents / Document
This Department of War release reproduces Project Blue Book records on the Tremonton, Utah film of 2 July 1952. In them, Navy Chief Photographer Delbert C. Newhouse explains how he filmed a group of bright objects near Tremonton. ATIC memos and a December 1952 travel report record Navy and General Mills balloon specialists judging that the objects closely resembled pillow balloons. A January 1953 memorandum discusses publicly releasing the film. The file also includes unrelated sighting reports from Phoenix and Massachusetts, plus material about Donald Keyhoe.
“The Advance”1 page
co~ 01/IDIW/lbh·.n2 Serial: e •UNCLASSIFlED MAY 4 1~5 ·n Subj: Interpretation of Movies of Unidentified Objects; progress report on L Analysis of the graph correlating luminosity and size indicate that as the luminosity of the objects increase, the size is larger also. This couJ..d be the effect of viewing directly, a reflecting surface. This is considered not probable because of the length of time they were viewed continuously on the film, approxi mately 90 seconds, and because of the angle through which they were photographed, approXimately 6o degrees. 'It is felt that if these images are reflective surfaces, blinking would occur during a period of 90 seconds while passing through a n angle of E,o degrees when photographed at the rate of 16 frames per second. This premise would permit highly reflective ball oons or spheroids to be a possibility . However, the velocit :,, and acceleration computations (sub paragraph 8) rule this possibility out. It appears, therefore, that if these objects are a reflecting surface, they are of a design, speed, and power not commonly known. The velocity and acceleration attributed to the objects may be caused by light reflected off a highly refl ective surface onto a n atomospheric screen where a slight angular turn of the reflective surface wouJ..d appear as high acceleration. This possibility is considered not probable because of the sun angle and atmospheric condition reported at the time of photography and because of the variations in luminosity which, under the above conditions would remain constant. It is the majority opinion of the group conducting this analysis that these images are light sources. This will explain the non-blinking and variations i n luminosity - but not the velocity or acceleration faciors. In either case, light source or reflective surface, it appears as ti' the objects are of a nature which we are not able to identify in terms of natural phe nomena or cpmmonly known man-taade objects. 2. There is no indication of what kind of objects could have caused the images except that they must be of a construction , design, and mater ial not commonly knovn. This is indicated b y the computed acceleration rate and elocity (answer 8). For the same reasons, birds, airers.ft and balloons are ruled out. 3. An analysis of the charts relative to movement indicate that there were group and ind.1vidual moveme nt. W1thin a group it appears as if the individual objects were moving counter-clock-wise aJ.ong an elliptical or similar track. Thus \then two objects crossed the camera line of sight they will appear to fuse i nto one. As they continued along their paths it will appear as if one objec t became two. Thie occured at reglar intervals at approXimately every 25th frame as plotted in chart s 5a and 5b. DOWNGRADED A'!, 3 YEAR Th'T'J'ERVA'u13; DECLASSIFIED AFTER 12 YEARS. DOD DIR 6200.10 4 DECLASSIFIED Authority NND 923007
Document, cited by the archive. The PDF is mirrored here; the original link is above. 156 pages are in the text index: search them above, or from the library's search.