UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 15

Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 15:44:22 -0300
Archived: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:52:04 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'

>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2007 16:15:21 +0100
>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

>>From: Dimitris Hatzopoulos <dhatz-ufo.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 20:13:30 +0300
>>Subject: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

>>Source: Jimmie Robinson's Blog - Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA


>>Tuesday, June 26, 2007

>>The Tremonton Seagulls

>>by Jimmie Robinson -- B.S., U. of Arizona 1953.
>>Physicist, White Sands Missile Range, NM 1954-55.
>>Asst. Astronomer, New Mexico St. University, 1955-1974
>>Systems Analyst, WSMR 1976- 1988


>>Consider the following: The focal length (76mm) of the camera is
>>known; the frame size (16mm) of the film is also known, hence
>>the field of view (fov) of each frame is known (fov = frame
>>size/focal length). Therefore, if the camera is held stationary
>>while an object is timed traversing the frame (which Newhouse
>>did several times), then we have a reliable measure of the
>>object's apparent angular velocity, which in this case turns out
>>to be approximately 12deg./sec. Consequently, at a distance of
>>one mile, the objects would have been moving about 750mph,
>>190mph @ a quarter of a mile, or 75mph .nul ft. The distance of
>>the objects is unknown, but (a) No bird is unidentifiable as
>>such at 500ft., or can fly 75mph, hence birds cannot explain the
>>movie, (b) no aircraft is unidentifiable as such at four miles,
>>and no aircraft was capable of the 3000mph velocity required for
>>that distance, and (c) no balloon is unidentifiable as such
>>.nul, nor can move 75mph on a calm day.

>>There are no assumptions, theories, opinions, or conjectures
>>involved in this conclusion. These are scientific facts, and are
>>all you need to rule out any known object or phenomenon as an
>>explanation for the Newhouse film. It's as simple as that.

>As I pointed out to Jimmie Robinson privately there is in fact
>one assumption being made here: The assumption that Newhouse did
>indeed hold the camera steady and allow the objects to pass
>through the FOV.

>This was the very assumption that the Robertson Panel called in
>question, suggesting that someone trying hard not to pan with
>the action might have unconsciously oversompensated and panned
>_against_ the action, thus inflating the apparent angular rate.
>Newhouse's assertion that he did not do this may (or may not) be
>a good one, but it does not unfortunately have the status of
>"scientific fact" in the sense claimed, so it isn't "as simple
>as that". It may be possible to calculate some plausible limit
>on the amount of angular error that could arise from such
>overcompensation, but I haven't seen this argument explicitly
>tackled anywhere. Has anyone else?

>That aside, its's very interesting story from Mr Robinson,

Hi Martin,

I have the movie UFO here and in the film Newhouse says he held
the camera steady and let a single object fly out of frame - and
that's shown. Why would he lie about that?

It should be easy enough these days to determine if the camera
moved. Strange an old navy type like Newhouse wouldn't know
seagulls from the other. He stated that the objects looked like
two saucers one inverted over the other and the size of a B-29
at 10,000 feet. That's not very far away.

If I were standing at the end of runway 02-20 at my local
airfield and was looking down it's length of 5,000 feet then
doubled that and a B-19 was on base leg for that runway at two
miles distance it would be large and very detailed. An eagle is
very apparent at a mile. I've seen them in the same context at
measured distances - runways are handy that way - where at one
time I advised one of our pilots, by radio, to watch out for an
eagle that was circling to his left next to the button of runway
20. He responded that he saw the eagle and banked right then
left to stay away from it. And it was next to the button of 20.

Newhouse noted that he had logged over 2,000 hours in the air
and had never seen anything like this before. I've seen seagulls
- Nova Scotia after all is nearly completely surrounded by water
- from all angles. Bottom, top, sides. Once almost through my
windscreen taking off from Brier Island, and I've seen them from
the ground when they thermal upwards to fly inland. They look
small and move, apparently, exceedingly slowly when in level
flight. And note that seagulls move quickly only when losing
altitude or swooping-diving, but when they actually flap their
wings to gain or maintain altitude and are in forward motion
they are actually a very slow moving bird, not like geese or

I've had too much experience with seagulls to attribute their
presence to what I've seen in that film nor do they even come
close to slotting in as a neat little piece of the puzzle. It's
apples and cucumbers.


Don Ledger

Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast



[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com