The Newhouse UFO incident 1952 Utah, U.S.A.

page: 1
10

log in

join

posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 08:12 PM
link   
This UFO event is considered by many to be one of the best cases of all time and i wanted to share the story with everyone as some people may have not heard about it since it was from long ago.

this case involves the witnesses , the military and project blue book. because of the credible witness testimony and video evidence that was rigorously investigated for many years after the event , i believe this was a real UFO sighting.

You can decide for yourself if you believe this or not and there is way to much documentation for me to post and quote in this Op so i will ask that you read the evidence in the links provided before making a judgement.


Warrant Officer Delbert C. Newhouse USN


The Year was 1952 and Warrant Officer Delbert C. Newhouse with his Wife and Children were on their way to Portland, Oregon and they were driving thru Tremonton, Utah when they spotted some disc shaped craft in the sky, so they stopped and got out of their Car to better observe what they were seeing.


The exact date of my sighting was July second, nineteen fifty-two, at eleven A.M., Mountain Standard Time. I was driving on US Highway thirty-south, with my wife and son, Delbert, and our daughter, Anne. We were on our way from Washington, D.C., to Portland, Oregon -- on vacation -- before moving to my new duty station at the Aviation Supply Depot, Naval Supply Center, Oakland, California. About seven miles after passing through Tremonton, Utah, Norma, my wife, noticed a group of objects in the sky, which she could not identify. I pulled off onto the shoulder of the road and stopped the car. I got out, looked up and saw the objects. There were about twelve of them, milling about in a round formation and proceeding in a general westerly direction. They were like nothing I had ever seen before, although I've logged some 2,000 hours in the air. They were identical in appearance.



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. When I first saw them they were nearly overhead, but by the time I got the camera ready they had moved to a considerably greater distance.


nicap.org...




the video evidence was thoroughly investigated by the military and they concluded that the objects were self illuminated and were oval shaped.


The Navy analysts didn't use the words "interplanetary spacecraft" when they told of their conclusions, but they did say that the UFO's were intelligently controlled vehicles and that they weren't airplanes or birds. They had arrived at this conclusion by making a frame-by-frame study of the motion of the lights and the changes in the lights' intensity.



The earliest analyses of the Utah Film, then classified Top Secret, were conducted by the United States Air Force and the U. S. Navy. After the films were declassified they were used in a UFO documentary in 1956 by Greene-Rouse. The analyses showed that there was the total absence of any evidence to indicate birds, such as fluttering.



This film could not be duplicated under simulated conditions.

The objects appear to be a light source rather than reflected light.

All the objects appear to be the same size and circular in shape.

At a distance of five miles, with the movement perpendicular to the line of sight, the average velocity is 653.5 mph. Likewise, at 2.5 miles the average speed is 326.75 mph.

The movement in flight appears to follow an elliptical or circular pattern, within the group.

While the objects are unidentified, the following possibilities have been eliminated:

1. Balloons
2. Aircraft
3. Birds

The image structure & maneuvers eliminates any type of aircraft.

Microscopic examinations show that the objects are in focus and 1/6th to 1/10 the size of the full moon with the naked eye.

Photogrammetric experiments have shown that the images cannot be associated with any type of bird observation at any distance.


www.ufologie.net...

also Mr. Newhouse reported that the Military took the video for examination but when it was returned some of the footage was missing.


“Newhouse said that the Air Force didn't send the originals back to him at any time. He wrote ATIC when a long time had elapsed, and what they did finally send back to him was a color print which he stressed was distinctly inferior to the original. Not only that, but he was positive that they had cut out the first 10 or 20 feet, which were shot when the objects were very much closer and appeared much sharper on the film.


ufomedia.blogspot.com...

www.ufologie.net...
www.ufologie.net...
www.ufocasebook.com...
www.aliendave.com...






click on the link to see the video in Quicktime format...

galactic2.net...




here is the video camera that was used
photo.net...

something i find very interesting about this case is it was in 1952 and the Washington fly over event was 1954. coincidental ?


















[edit on 28-11-2008 by easynow]

[edit on 28-11-2008 by easynow]




posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
Nice recap of a classic case.

Some more info on the Tremonton film (incl. Allen Hynek recollection on how the Robertson Panel "debunked" it as birds) at UFO video footage (right column, scroll one page down)



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 08:59 PM
link   
reply to post by dhatz
 


thanks
,

yes there were a few people that said it was Birds, however i find it very interesting that the U.S. Navy spent many hours studying the video and their conclusion was the objects were traveling to fast and were self illuminated wich ruled out that possibility.

from your link

The film was studied at the US Navy's photo lab at Anacostia (NPIC). Navy film experts made a frame-by-frame analysis that took over one thousand man-hours. They studied the motions of the objects, their relation to each other in the formation, the lighting of the objects, and every other piece of data they could find on the film. It was also studied for three months at the Photo Reconnaissance Laboratory of the Air Force Intelligence in 1952. The analysis, then classified Top Secret,


www.hyper.net...

also Mr. Newhouse reported that he did not get back all the video footage from them so how could any of those investigators make a conclusive finding when they probably didn't have the best part of the video ?


But the tape that was given back to Newhouse was a copy and not the original he had submitted.


“Newhouse said that the Air Force didn't send the originals back to him at any time. He wrote ATIC when a long time had elapsed, and what they did finally send back to him was a color print which he stressed was distinctly inferior to the original. Not only that, but he was positive that they had cut out the first 10 or 20 feet, which were shot when the objects were very much closer and appeared much sharper on the film.


ufomedia.blogspot.com...








[edit on 27-11-2008 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 09:56 PM
link   
Yeah, the Air Force is bad about getting footage back to people. The same thing apparently happened with the 1950 Great Falls, Montana, footage. The witness and photographer, Nick Mariana, said he actually got some footage of the flying saucers good enough to see that they weren't jets, but by the time he got the footage back a lot of it was missing.

www.ufocasebook.com...

It's somewhere in a file, I suppose. They best copy of it that currently exists, I suppose, even if it's black and white, is in this classic documentary, which also features the Tremonton footage:

www.amazon.ca...

But let that be a lesson to you. Don't give the Air Force or the MIB your original footage or film. Fortunately, these days it's pretty much all digital, so originals are easier to save.



posted on Nov, 27 2008 @ 10:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Nohup
 



Thanks Nohup for the link on that Great Falls, Montana case


that is another perfect example of a cover up if you ask me. they never released an official report and video footage was missing. their explanation of reflections of jets sure gives them the right to keep part of the video doesn't it ?


But let that be a lesson to you. Don't give the Air Force or the MIB your original footage or film. Fortunately, these days it's pretty much all digital, so originals are easier to save.


good advice and i am amazed at how many people did just that. just handed it over with out even thinking they might not even see it ever again.






[edit on 27-11-2008 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
oops the Washington UFO incident was apparently in 1952 also so i am correcting my Op.



ufos.about.com...
en.wikipedia.org...

1952 sure was a busy year for UFO's

cybercityradio.com...
www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
dandare.wordpress.com...
www.nicap.org...


www.psibeach.com...



posted on Nov, 28 2008 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Maybe the military has no idea what they have, maybe they fear admitting they don't know everything and that that might embolden their enemies, maybe they fear it is enemy technology or genetic engineering (in the case of aliens themselves), maybe they have a secret agreement or agenda with whoever these things belong to, maybe they have nothing and just propogate the mystery for propoganda to cover thier own doings or those of their secret partners, the list of reasons go on and on. The point is, don't trust government to answer your question without keeping in mind their own profits and interests- or lack thereof. rather, you should be inquiring of the clerks, the recordkeepers, the operatives, the researchers, and technicians. They're usually paid well for silence so make it profitable for them, while being cautious of agent provacateurs and glory seekers, and profit mongers. Another tactic would be to appeal to the psyche of those involved. Instead of concerted efforts in the UFO communities to prove the existance of such things. They, and witnesses should counter with "proof" and "testimony" that not only are such things improbable, but completely impossible and lunatic to suggest. Say exactly what they say now, but, do so with a louder, clearer, further reaching voice. Do so as one. If you can make such things the accepted view of the day, what does that say for those who make a living within the government in the UFO/ USO areas. It says (if such things are real) that such things are shams and hoaxes. That their entire life is not only a lie, but a big fat waste of their time and efforts. It's bad enough when they have to lie about it or say nothing at all, worse stilll that the agencies and beauracracies deny the proof of their life's work, but can you imagine the bulk of the whole World doing it too, especially those who've seen or who have firsthand knowledge. What do you suppose it would drive them to do consciously or subconciously, no matter how well paid or indoctrinated? Squeal? Maybe.
Sorry, I edit alot because I suck at proofreading and spellchecks.

[edit on 28-11-2008 by PhyberDragon]



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   
some more interesting items involving this event and i agree with this article that the witness testimony is a key piece of evidence since he was a qualified observer with many flight hours and in my opinion serious consideration should be taken about his statements that the objects were gun metal gray colored and disc shaped.


Francis Ridge:
Although considered highly controversial by many, these films were taken seriously by both the U.S. Air Force and the Navy. Some of the things not considered by skeptics are the credibility of the witness, the effects of image reduction, and forgotten testimony. First of all, no photo or film is any better than the reporting witness. The Air Force and the Navy were convinced enough about Newhouse's credibility to spend considerable time and money on the analyses and to classify this film as "Secret". Secondly, image reduction is a factor to be dealt with here. What the human eye sees is always better than what the camera records, even by a professional-grade 16 mm Bell & Howell. And what Newhouse and his wife saw BEFORE he was able to get the camera out and running, reportedly, were structured objects, described as "gunmetal-colored objects shaped like two saucers, one inverted on top of the other." Also noted by the analysts was the absence of any evidence to indicate birds such as fluttering.

A good daylight report with two witnesses (one very reputable) and good motion picture footage that neither the Air Force, nor the Navy, and others, could logically explain. And, surprisingly, an FBI document illustrates the importance of this incident. Recently added are the Blue Book documents found in the Project Blue Book Archives.

www.nicap.org...


here is a supposed FBI document related to the Newhouse sighting.


The following is an excerpt from an: FBI Memorandum, dated October 27, 1952, to Mr. A. M. Belmont, from V.P. Keay.


Colonel XXXXXX, Executive Officer to Major General John A. Samford, Director of Intelligence, Air Force, advised on October 23, 1952, that another recent extremely credible sighting had been reported to Air Intelligence. A Navy photographer, while traveling across the United States in his own car, saw a number of objects in the sky which appeared to be flying saucers. He tool approximately thirty-five feet of motion-picture film of these objects. He voluntarily submitted the film to Air Intelligence who had it studied by Air Technical Intelligence Center. Experts at the Air Technical Intelligence Center have advised that, after careful study, there were as many as twelve to sixteen flying objects recorded on this film; that the possibility of weather balloons, clouds or other explainable objects has been completely ruled out; and that they are at a complete loss to explain this most recent credible sighting. The Air Technical Intelligence Center experts pointed out that they could not be optical illusions inasmuch as optical illusions could not be recorded on film.


www.nicap.org...

and some more reading on this case...


Of the Tremonton tapes, Hastings said: "If one looks, using modern, computer-based visual-enhancement technologies, those seagulls essentially were saucer-shaped. They were round, oval-shaped or disc-shaped, so clearly they weren't seagulls.

"That's one example of countless ones where the PR guys at the Pentagon have tried to explain away UFOs."


www.theufochronicles.com...


also i have found some better Youtube versions of the remaining footage.










[edit on 29-11-2008 by easynow]



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 04:38 PM
link   
An interesting, well presented case!


Too bad we do not have the original film (not video, what was used was a film camera, not a video camera, there were no video cameras at that time) to analyse.

And I would not try to link the "Washington fly over" with this case, I have some doubts about the Washington event being a real UFO case.

Star and flag.



posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 06:42 PM
link   
The one thing that confuses me: I thought the Military (specifically the Airforce related) had a fringe benefit of hopping planes all over (cargo plane for the car and fam etc.). A drive from DC to Portland.. ouch.



posted on Feb, 5 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow


This looks like a good one to me, because it does not look like a bird in this frame, but a typical UFO during those times, which entirely appeared to be the Greys who where bulding bases in that area during those times. They appeared to be going out for a leisurely fly in the morning.



Interesting notes:
At 9 seconds 3 or 4 UFOs appear from being invisible.
At 10 seconds 5 or 6 UFOs appear from being invisible.
At 40 seconds the film seems to be edited.



edit on 5-2-2011 by greyer because: format



posted on Aug, 17 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   
If a conspiracy then why not just dismiss it as birds rather than give as an interesting assessment?






top topics



 
10

log in

join