UFO Conjecture(s)

Monday, October 12, 2015

Two classic UFO photographic films that made some of us into UFO buffs

This is a clip from the 1952 Tremonton, Utah film taken by Navy Officer Delbert Newhouse:
And this is a shot of one of the UFOs that left the cluster:
And here is a clip from the 1950 Nick Mariana film taken in Great Falls, Montana:
Here are the YouTube videos of both sightings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLvzgJMsIQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKlszbnZx3o

Now you know that analyses of both films were made by the Navy and the Condon Committee, as well as a few independent groups and individuals.

A consensus of birds (sea gulls, particularly) for the Newhouse film has gratified skeptics and the jet airplane explanation for the Montana film has gladdened the heart of UFO deniers.

But neither "explanation" seems to fit what you see for yourselves.

Birds/sea gulls in flight do not cavort in the bizarre manner that one sees in the light sources Newhouse captured. But then one might wonder why a bevy of UFOs would fly in such a quirky manner, and in such a pell-mell grouping.

As for the Mariana film and its two light sources, one could easily see the things as jet exhausts from two jet airplanes, but that is a facile explanation, on the face of it, but not one easily dismissed.

Yet, I see these two films as allowing for a serious scrutiny of the UFO phenomenon, as has been the case with both films.

Nonetheless, this kind of "evidence" for strange things seen (and filmed) in the skies makes for the wonder that UFOs (flying saucers) provoked in the public and news media once upon a time....but no longer, sadly.

RR

9 Comments:

  • Looking back, why should these films, which show nothing more than white dots moving about on an empty sky background, excite anyone? They may have excited some people in the early 1950s but were such films to be taken today, they would be ignored completely. The reason being that they show nothing but tiny white dots. Big deal.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, October 12, 2015  

  • Don't be a curmudgeon CDA.

    Lights moving erratically in the sky are a lot more exciting than your obsession with the Roswell balloon debris.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 12, 2015  

  • "Lights moving erratically in the sky are a lot more exciting than your obsession with the Roswell balloon debris."

    Do you really think so?

    As I said, in the early 50s, people like Keyhoe were quick to seize on these films as 'the final proof'. Nowadays, such films would be disregarded completely, as tiny white dots have no interest to anyone.

    The Roswell story was an unknown, and unheard of, event in the early 50s. Nowadays it is everywhere, and certain people just cannot keep off it, as it constitutes 'the final proof'.

    Of course it doesn't; but whatever I may say, it will not go away, will it?

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, October 12, 2015  

  • Nope CDA...Roswell is NOT everywhere. It Is just prominent at Kevin's blog where you quidnuncs are keeping it alive with stupid, redundant arguments.

    It is more than sad. Is is pathologic!

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Monday, October 12, 2015  

  • There are at least a half a dozen videos from Mexico that are almost identical to the Newhouse film. The big difference is that Newhouse said that he first saw the UFOs up close and that they resembled "two pie pans one inverted on top of the other." What the Newhouse and Mexico UFOs were or are remains a total mystery, although the Navy analysis of the Newhouse film did eliminate many conventional explanations.

    By Blogger Dominick, at Monday, October 12, 2015  

  • I find the Tremonton film surprisingly convincing. It's seldom mentioned that Delbert Newhouse was a "Chief Photographer" for the Navy, so even though the film was shot extemporaneously, it was done by an expert.

    More to the point, after an estimated 1,000 man-hours of work, the U.S. military’s finest photo analysts came to the following conclusions:
    “It is the majority opinion of the group conducting this analysis that these images are light sources. This will explain the non-blinking and variations in luminosity—but not the velocity or acceleration factors. In either case, light source or reflective surface, it appears as if the objects are of a nature which we are not able to identify in terms of natural phenomena or commonly-known man-made objects.

    “There is no indication of what kind of objects could have caused the images except that they must be of a construction, design, and material not commonly known. This is indicated by the computed acceleration rate and velocity. For the same reasons, birds, aircraft and balloons are ruled out.”

    Several years later the chief photo analyst, Arthur Lundahl, in a story that was published in the National Enquirer, said "“I’ve seen a genuine film of UFOs that, as a photo analyst, I believe could not have been faked.”

    Lundahl, whose greatest contribution to U.S. intelligence was to confirm to President John F. Kennedy that there were, indeed, nuclear missiles in Cuba, was very clear about the Newhouse film. “We tested that film, about 1,600 frames of 16mm Kodachrome motion picture film, for several hundred man-hours on a frame projector. We analyzed each frame and looked for possible doctoring. We looked for flecks of dust that might have caused refracting, even for holes in the bellows of the camera. But we found nothing to explain what appeared on the film.

    “I am convinced that this sighting was something that simply goes beyond what we know of on earth,” Lundahl concluded. “We spent hours poring over that film look-ing for possible explanations – birds, planes, reflections from earth – but gradually, scientifically, we wiped out every possible one.”

    To me it doesn't matter that Lundahl's comments appeared in The Enquirer, but I know it will matter to a lot of people (including those who think that the Enquirer was/is a CIA propaganda rag). The man's statement is pretty strong, and to my knowledge has never been knocked down...

    By Blogger Mark OC, at Monday, October 12, 2015  

  • The objects were estimated at moving from 500 to 1500 MPH. Not birds.

    By Blogger Ben Moss, at Saturday, October 17, 2015  

  • Ben...

    Yes, the "lights" (or objects) do not show any pattern of bird flight, especially sea gulls.

    RR

    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Saturday, October 17, 2015  

  • I will be updating the Socorro Incident at next Saturdays (October 24th) Mysteries of Space and Sky. There is new information, and I will present a detailed account of the event and the other supposed explanations for the event. It will be recorded and we will place it on our site at www.mufonva.com.
    But to all reading this please come to this event, one of the oldest repeating conference in Ufology.
    http://www.eventbrite.com/e/mysteries-of-space-sky-2015-tickets-17590771471

    By Blogger Ben Moss, at Saturday, October 17, 2015  

Post a Comment

<< Home