UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 21

Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'

From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2007 18:26:33 EDT
Archived: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 09:19:04 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'

>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 12:44:59 -0600
>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

>>From: Brad Sparks <RB47x.nul>
>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:49:00 EDT
>>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

>>>From: Michael Tarbell <mtarbell.nul>
>>>To: ufoupdates.nul
>>>Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 06:40:08 -0600
>>>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?


>>The CIA got an early copy perhaps before the first portion was
>>lost. The CIA Office of Scientific Intelligence lists the total
>>number of frames as about 1,600. That would correspond to 100
>>seconds (or about 1.7 minutes).

>I'm definitely confused about the travels of the original film,
>who made copies for whom, etc. Here is a letter dated 04 May
>1953 from L. W. Keith, US Naval Photographic Interpretation
>Center (NPIC), which clearly indicates that NPIC had the
>original (at least temporarily) and produced a color-corrected


Unfortunately someone started calling the NavPIC the "NPIC"
here in these UFO UpDates postings, which is a confusing no-no,
since several years after Tremonton the now much more famous CIA
NPIC was established on Jan. 18, 1961. They are or were two
completely different orgs. Even internally NavPIC did not call
themselves that, they used the "PIC" abbreviation. Possibly they
liked that because it's short for "picture."

>Here is another letter, dated 18 Mar 1954, from the acting
>Commanding Officer at NPIC, who states that NPIC "... has never
>had posession of the original and does not have information
>concerning its whereabouts.":


NavPIC analyst Harry Woo's report states that he was working
with a "duplicate of a copy." He made the duplicate from what he
thought was a copy. Maybe he was mistaken or misled about that
fact. Maybe he could not believe how badly the film had been
handled and assumed that it could only be a copy that that this
was done to, as surely no one would be so stupid as to wreck the
original like that without copying it first, and only replaying
the copy over and over again. In any case Page 3 of Woo's report
states he used a "duplicate of a copy."  See:


Woo's NavPIC analysis states that the film was "divided into
three parts" for "convenience in interpretation." But I don't
think that was meant literally, using scissors to cut the film,
but meant he divided his analysis in three parts. Part I was the
f/8 phase. Parts II and III were the f/16 phase. Part II was the
view of the whole group. Part III was the view of the lone
departing object.

>Yours is the first mention I've seen of CIA/OSI having a
>complete (if not original) copy.

B: See my just previous posting. Apparently CIA/OSI borrowed and
copied the film before a lot of the damage from reshowings
occurred, but they didn't keep the original. Ruppelt got the
original from the AF HQ (and CIA) in bad shape.

Also note that as of Oct. 7, 1952, the Tremonton film still had
the scene of mountains in Idaho at the end which was taken by
Newhouse sometime after the UFO's. This could screw up the total
frame counts. If a count was made for completeness with the
Idaho scenes included then it would enlarge the total
relevant number.


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