UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Jul > Jul 22

Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'

From: Martin Shough <parcellular.nul>
Date: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 18:45:37 +0100
Archived: Sun, 22 Jul 2007 14:20:24 -0400
Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls'


>From: Bruce Maccabee <brumac.nul>
>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 16:16:20 -0400
>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

>>From: David Rudiak <drudiak.nul>
>>To: <ufoupdates.nul>
>>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 11:57:43 -0700
>>Subject: Re: The 1952 Tremonton Utah 'Seagulls' Confirmation?

><snip>

>>You might be interested to know that Canadian documentary film-
>>maker David Cherniak had planned to interview Newhouse last year
>>for his new UFO documentary, but Newhouse died only a day or two
>>before the interview. However, Newhouse's son was also a witness
>>to the objects, and David hoped to interview him in the future.
>>However, I don't know if he ever got back to do the interview.

>Never heard about his son being a witness. Everyone  concentrated
>on Newhouse. Anyone ever interview his wife?

According to the 1956 interview for the Greene Rouse documentary
it was their daughter, Anne, who was in the car. No son is
mentioned here. See:

http://nicap.org/utah2.htm

But a 1953 letter from Newhouse

http://nicap.org/docs/utah520702docs1.htm

describes the UFOs as "sighted by my wife, my children and
myself". This agrees with an interview by McDonald in early May
1970 where Newhouse said that "his son and daughter had gotten
fairly good views of the objects too. The son was then 14, the
daughter 12."

And yes, Mrs. Newhouse was interviewed by McDonald in that
telephone 3-way along with her husband. See:

http://nicap.org/utah4.htm

She "fully confirmed" her husbands description of the objects as
"gunmetal" and shaped like pie-pans face to face.

Interestingly (and confusingly) Newhouse apparently told McDonald
that he'd submitted approximately 60 ft of UFO film, adding the
further new detail that this was spliced from 20 ft and 40 ft
sections because he'd had to change film magazines in the middle.
I can find no other reference to this claim. In his 1956 filmed
interview

http://nicap.org/utah2.htm

he said "I watched the objects for several moments before I got
my camera out of the suitcase.  I lost more time getting the
film out of a second suitcase and then loading the camera." This
suggests a fresh reel of film, which is unlikely to have been
only 20 ft long, or only about 45 secs at 16fps. His original
statement makes no reference to changing the film: He said  that
he took the camera out of the trunk and "loading it hurriedly, I
exposed approaximately 30 ft of film... I expended the balance
of the film late that afternoon on a mountain somewhere in
Idaho."

Perhaps McDonald got this confused? (Note that McDonald also
referred to the inconsistency of Newhouse's 0.5 degree angular
size estimate for the same reason we have mentioned here, and
concluded that Newhouse was exaggerating his angle estimate
considerably - as witnesses tend to do.)

There's also a 1999 letter in which Newhouse says that the copy
returned to him was "less than half" of the original length.
Does this support the statement to McDonald concerning 60 ft of
film? Air Force documents only record receipt of approximately
30 ft of film, and 1200 frames could equate to a little more
than 30 ft. The FBI memo quoted by Bruce refers to about 35 ft
of film, which might fit the "90 secs" (~36 ft) referred to in
the Naval PIC document. These lengths might be explained, as
Brad points out, if we allow for the mountain footage on the
end. A 16 Sept 1952 ATIC Disposition Form requests the AF Photo
Reconnaissance Lab to examine and copy the film and physically
separate the non-UFO section, which was to be returned to ATIC.

But these Sept 1952 actions were evidently the first actions
taken with the original film, and the copy later sent for
analysis to the Naval PIC would have to have been a copy of the
complete reel still containing mountain scenes if we are to
explain their "90 secs" in this way. I find this unlikely. The
first instructions to the Photo Recon Lab were to copy "the
portion of the film containing unidentified aerial phenomena"
and to cut away the rest from the original for return to ATIC.
(This was incidentally a stupid thing to do for any scientific
purpose, since the scene filmed at the end could have contained
vital information about the response of the lens system and film
as well as perhaps hand-jitter magnitiudes that could have been
used to callibrate the UFO film etc)

Some confusion about footage could potentially arise from the
fact that 35mm copies are sometimes being discussed, sometimes
16 mm duplicates. Baker was using a 35 mm copy. ATIC didn't
always seem clear about what it was using.

A Naval PIC letter responding to ATIC's request for return of
the original film (pursuant to Newhouse's request for its return
having damaged the copy that he originally agreed to receive in
lieu) discloses that ATIC's Jan 1954 request referred to an
original 35mm film. The PIC disclaims ever having been in
possession of the original (they still held only 16mm and 35 mm
copies), and informs ATIC that it was a 16mm taken with "a
Revere [camera]... with an F1.9 wide-angle telephoto lens" (is
this the same as a Bell& Howell?). The 16 Sept 1952 ATIC
Disposition Form to the Photo Reconnaissance Lab mentioned above
also requests an expeditious analysis and copying of the "35 mm
film". But the reply from the AF Photo Reconnaissance Lab
correctly references "16 mm Kodachrome".

Another interesting nugget is that the AF Photo Reconnaissance
Lab replied to ATIC on Oct 10 1952 that they had "examined in
detail" the original and would make a copy as requested "as soon
as the immediate need for inspection has passed" (possibly
implying that copying was thought to involve risk to the
original and that measurements needed to be completed first?).
But, says the Lab Chief, "it is doubtful that the duplicate will
be of much value for detailed inspection, as explained by the
small spot size and the general graininess of the film".

In other words the photo lab that made the first generation
copy, which then became the master for all other copies on which
all the years of subsequent argument have been based, opined
right at the start that it was not going to be good enough for
others to do the same "detailed examination" that they were then
doing on the original. And the original was destroyed. Terrific.

Martin Shough



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

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/


[ 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