UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 19

Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah'Seagulls'Confirmation?

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 18:04:00 +0100
Archived: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:35:08 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah'Seagulls'Confirmation?

>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 18:35:59 -0400
>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'Confirmation?

>>From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 14:02:58 +0100
>>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'Confirmation?

>>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Sun, 15 Jul 2007 10:01:53 -0600
>>>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?


>>Newhouse stopped down from f/8 to f/16 (because he feared he
>>might be overexposing). This could in itself reduce the image
>>size. So I'd like to know that the 30 % size reduction is indeed
>>"smooth" and is a figure arrived at after subtracting the
>>reduction in flare.

>I would like to add something to this rather erudite discussion
>of the Newhouse film.

>I discovered, or more accurately, rediscovered the image size
>vs brightness relationship while I was analyzing the New Zealand
>(Dec. 31, 1978) film oh, so long ago!

>I carried out experiments which showed the following:

>Let "geosize" be the geometric sized image which depends
>upon the focal length, F, the distance to the object, D and the
>object size (transverse to the line of sight), O. Then
>geosize = F (O/D)

>This is simply the equivalence of two ratios: geosize/F = O/D.

>However, this has to be modified when brightness becomes very
>large. Light travels sideways in the film thereby increasing
>the size of the image beyond its geosize according to the
>relation, where I = image size including brightness effects,

>I = geosize + K log (Exposure)

>K is a function of the film and its development. Exposure is the
>amount of light energy hitting the film (the illuminance on the
>film multiplied by the shutter time, or the irradiance in  W/cm^2
>times the shutter time). Exposure depends upon how much light
>falls on the film while the shutter is open and this also
>depends upon the area of the the lens aperture which is
>proportional to the square of the f#. If one had film identical
>to what Newhouse used, and if it were developed in the same way,
>it would be possible to determine from the test film what the
>constant K is. (I did this years ago for the New Zealand color
>movie film by photographing back-illuminated apertures of
>various sizes using various exposure settings.) Since he
>the f# it might be possible to deduce or approximate K from the
>film itself if one had the original (sorry about that!) or a
>good copy. It would be necessary to measure the sizes of the
>images before and after the f stop change. IF there was very
>little change then probably there was little image growth due to
>exposure. If there was a large change (e.g., 30%) then the image
>sizes at f/16 would probably still be "inflated" somewhat by

Thanks, Bruce. As I read the BB documents, the film was
physically separated into literal "clips" for study and one of
the cuts was made at the point of f# change if I remember right.
Since the extant film is only a copy I hope it was made directly
from the original before any dismembering so that if anyone does
the measurement you recommend they can be sure to be comparing
like with like.

How do the edges of the image behave as it grows with this
flaring? Al Chop is quoted as saying that these were "burned
right down to the celluloid", which I take to mean the negative
is saturated in the image areas (don't know if this applies to
both sides of the f/stop change) but the edges are said to be
"sharp". Hartmann says that "when the objects dimmed
sufficiently they faded out entirely with no dark dot or
silhouette being visible", implying that most if not all of the
image size is due to overexposure, which allows the angular
source size to be small enough for unresolved birds. On the
other hand the further away the bird is not only the faster it
needs to fly but the more efficiently it needs to reflect the
sun. Wouls it be possible to put a lower limit on the light flux
at the emulsion and then infer the emitted/reflected intensity
from general principles? (I think the NPIC did something like
this because they decided gulls were "not sufficiently actinic"
but I don't know the detail of how they did it)

I take it you haven't had the chance to work on this film
yourself? Would you like to? (Not that I can do anything about it
of course, I'd just like to see your results.)

>But, aside from the interesting but tedious technical analysis,
>I always believed that they were not seagulls because I couldn't
>imagine Newhouse (after his wife attracted his attention to the
>objects) would be so confused by birds flying overhead that he
>would stop the car to take their picture. If the objects were of
>sufficiently large angular size for him to deduce shape and if
>they and been birds he'd have known it. As I recall, Ruppelt
>pointed out that when Newhouse was first interviewed the
>discussion was centered on the film and no one asked for a
>detailed description of what the objects looked like at the time
>he first saw them. And at the Robertson panel discussion all
>they talked about was the film. Nothing about their initial
>appearance. (Same with the Marianna/Great Falls Montana film.)

I find it hard to imagine that they didn't recognise seagulls
too. To be frank about it, we'd have to be prepared to assume
some dishonesty or serious self-deception on the part of
Newhouse and his wife to make it work - for example, that they
realised in their heart-of-hearts that the things were gulls but
thought the film looked weird enough to try passing it off as
UFOs. But as far as I know nobody has ever seriously suggested
that Newhouse was being disingenuous when he first offered the
film "for whatever value it may have in connection with your
investigation of the so-called 'Flying Saucers'". I suppose
there's the remote possibility that the subtext here was "Take a
look at these gulls, and we'll see how gullible you are!" and
that after a while things got out of their control, they sort of
came to believe their own story with years of retelling etc
Well, you know the script. But I don't believe it. I _can_
believe that with the passage of years some visual detail got
inflated and embroidered a bit (i.e. the 0.5 degree saucers),
but I don't think that at the time they were able to recognise
these things as birds.

It would be interesting to hear from any researchers on the List
who had personal knowledge of the Newhouse family or the
investigation. Also I'd second Mike's query: Where can we see
the entire film today?.

Martin Shough

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