Peeking into the Corners of 1952, Part Five

by Michael D. Swords

Tremonton: Did Anyone Get This Right?

This next article in the series is about the oft-discussed Tremonton, Utah, UFO film shot by US Navy photographer Delbert C. Newhouse on July 2, 1952. The film rattled the Air Force Pentagon community, all the way to the point of thinking about changing USAF public policy. The available files indicate both complexity and gaps in our knowledge. The true story is tough to crack. In fact, I’m pretty sure that I can’t do it. But this was a turning point (just like the 1953 Robertson Panel, in which it played a role). Let’s give this a try, and you can fill in the facts that I miss.

On the right is the photo that Chief Warrant Officer Newhouse submitted when Donald Keyhoe asked him to join the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomena (NICAP) as an adviser or consultant. Newhouse was interested because of his UFO experience, but he was not much involved with any subsequent NICAP investigations. He was a respected non-commissioned officer with photographic skills. He had more than 2,000 hours of piloting along with his many years of service. By a fortunate accident, Newhouse was known to legendary photo-intelligence analyst Arthur C. Lundahl (at the time chief engineer of the Photogrammetry Division of the Naval Photographic Center at Naval Air Station Anacostia) even before his sighting. Lundahl liked him and felt that he was a highly qualified professional. The point of mentioning this is to indicate that we have in this rare instance a highly respected and skilled man, so that character assassination-type debunking allegations are essentially dead on arrival. So, what happened?

Newhouse had received a new assignment that forced him to change locations from the East coast to the West, now to be stationed in Oakland, California. He had earned some vacation time to spend before reporting for duty, so he and his family were driving across the country to their destination of Portland, Oregon. They had made it as far as Tremonton, Utah, when their UFO encounter occurred. Delbert was driving, and his wife Norma was in the passenger seat. Their two children were (apparently) in the back seat. At about 11:10 a.m., Norma saw a group of objects in the sky that she could not identify. They were reportedly first seen in the east, so it is possible that she saw them out her side window and Delbert could not. (I find the official interview records on this case very defective, by the way. Certain kinds of details seem unimportant to the interviewer.)

The UFOs were fairly high in the sky, and Delbert was unable to see much despite his wife insisting that there were unusual objects up there and would he please stop the car. After insisting on this for a full minute, he finally relented. They got out and saw about 12-plus shiny objects only about 10° from the zenith. Unlike many people who have cameras, as a trained aerial photographer, Newhouse immediately reacted by opening the trunk and trying to get his camera and film out and operational. Unfortunately, these were in two separate pieces of luggage, and at least two more minutes passed as he scrambled to shoot. Norma, therefore, watched these objects for another three minutes more closely than did Delbert—but no one seemed to get that, and so she was largely ignored in the written record.

On the left is an image from the film that Newhouse shot. It was a nice clear sky, but I have darkened the blue somewhat to make the light spots stand out. You can watch the original footage from the Project Blue Book files in the National Archives at https://catalog.archives.gov/id/61937.

Newhouse said: “There were about twelve of them, milling about in a round formation and proceeding in a generally 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.”

Newhouse was interviewed several times throughout the next few decades, and this part of his story is consistent. By the time he got to filming them, the objects were much further away. Also consistent were his assertions that one object broke from the formation and flew off to the east, not to return, that the family watched the rest of the objects go over the horizon to the west, and that to the naked eye the objects were clearly not planes or birds. Nothing changed in his report over the decades, but the very first interview does not (at least explicitly) include this observation: On closest view, the objects were bright silver in color and structured like two shallow pie pans, one inverted over the other. Norma later insisted on this.

After the sighting, the family continued on to Portland, and Newhouse undoubtedly developed the film, viewed it, and showed it to others. He said: “The film falls far short of what I saw with the naked eye, due to the delay in getting the camera going and to my error in exposure.” He had made a decision mid-filming to change his exposure on a hunch, but he later felt that was a mistake. “If I had had that camera on the seat beside me, loaded and ready to go, there wouldn’t be any need for questions.” But he didn’t, and there were.

Ultimately Newhouse went to his bosses, and an informal (?) report went to Hill Air Force Base near Layton, Utah, some 50 miles south of the site of the event. Hill apparently got a copy of the film and perhaps the negatives, and it was apparently viewed there before it was forwarded to Project Blue Book, the Pentagon, and Dewey Fournet’s intelligence analysis office. Fournet and others were impressed, and Dewey sent the film on to the USAF’s photo-reconnaissance laboratory at Wright-Patterson’s Air Development Center. He drafted a lengthy list of things for them to look for.

The film was mistreated at both Hill and Wright-Patterson, but how much remains a mystery. The sure thing is that brackets were broken and stripped, and the film was over-projected so much that it began falling apart. It finally dawned on them that they shouldn’t be running the same copy over and over dozens of times. Still, there were some results.

Fournet had asked specifically for the lab to look at birds, aircraft, and balloons along with anything else that they could reasonably imagine. This lab was the one used by Ruppelt for photoanalysis before, and it was overseen by a man named James Chapman, whom Ruppelt respected. The conclusions here were the usual complaining and rationalizing about the quality of the film and the difficulty of getting any identification at all, but also included the remarks that the analysts were “reasonably certain that the brightness of the images on the film exceeds that of any bird,” that “the objects are not spherical balloons,” and that “the objects could be aircraft” (frankly a dumb suggestion immediately followed by three reasons why this couldn’t be true).

Meanwhile, back at the Pentagon, Fournet said that the excitement over this film was pushing high-level officers into near action in terms of disclosing the whole UFO inquiry to the US public, and letting the extraterrestrial opinions fall where they may. Meanwhile, Fournet knew that Naval Air Station Anacostia in Washington, D.C., had a crack photo analysis group, and he reached out for more help there.

Fournet had a film copy sent to the Naval Photographic Center (right) in Building 169 at NAS Anacostia, and it was examined by two good analysts, Lt. R. S. Neasham and Mr. Harry Woo. Both of them continued to have good careers afterward, and Woo and Fournet knew one another fairly well thereafter (Dewey showed Woo the famous Estimate of the Situation, for instance.) The two analysts spent a huge number of hours on the film, particularly analyzing frame-by-frame motions of each object in relation to all the others. They, of course, tried out the “bird, balloon, aircraft” alternatives. Their conclusion was that none of those worked to explain both the brightness and the motions. Kibitzing on this, but not at work on it, was the most famous photographic analyst of the 20th century, Arthur C. Lundahl (left), also stationed at Anacostia. Lundahl later said that he viewed the film many times, knew Neasham and Woo well, and that their conclusions were correct (and by deduction, later debunker opinions wrong.) Lundahl did not himself become director of the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) until May 1953, but he was present and interested in everything.

This analysis, of course, fed the ET frenzy in the USAF Pentagon offices even higher. Talk was rife with ideas of releasing the film with full commentary. In one last attempt to debunk this, the Air Force sent up some tethered balloons (one of the few ideas that anyone thought had a chance to explain this.) A bad photo (right) exists in the Blue Book record.

This film seemed to correlate with Dewey Fournet’s concepts of intelligent motions, as Fournet, Neasham, and Woo believed that the motions shown were not chaotic but deliberate and patterned. And that is where the battle would be fought.

Along come these guys … yep, The Robertson Panel, January 14–17, 1953. The origins of this affair are quite complex, and I won’t repeat them here. For the moment, let’s just say that it was not the Tremonton film that created it (though in a little way the film contributed to the paranoia). Tremonton did get caught up in the panel’s activities though, in a very momentous way.

As the feature presentation of evidence before the panel, Fournet and the photoanalysts came in together with the idea that they had enough to make the panel’s scientists—physicists Howard P. Robertson, Lloyd Berkner, Samuel A. Goudsmit, and Luis Walter Alvarez; and astronomer Thornton Page—take notice. They were wrong, largely because the five scientists didn’t care. Robertson was informed earlier that the job was estimating threats to national security, not breakthrough discoveries. Fournet’s ideas were just dismissed. The films were more “fun,” so the panel decided to treat themselves to several showings. Nobody brought a screen (I find this weird), so they just projected pictures on the wall.

J. Allen Hynek, who as Project Blue Book’s astronomical consultant was there for part of the meeting, said: “The viewing of the two films [Great Falls was also shown] is the incident that remains by far the most vivid in my mind… the rather informal attitude at the time. The men had left their austere positions around the conference table and were sort-of crouching around and leaning over each other’s shoulders watching the films. There was a whole interplay of comments. Not exactly wisecracks, but ‘well, it certainly looks like seagulls to me,’ and ‘you can’t convince me that that’s not birds, it’s gotta be birds,’ and words to that effect. Some people expressed a little dismay at the Tremonton film saying that they didn’t realize that birds could reflect that much and someone would say ‘Oh, yes, if the light’s right, sun’s right,’ and I believe that I mentioned the change in light was too rapid for it to be birds in flight, but that got nowhere.” In short, Hynek was upset and insulted by the panel’s attitude, and remained, maybe all of his life, ignorant about the behind-the-mirror real reason for the event. The bottom line here is that the whole Robertson Panel approach to the film is a joke, even beneath dignity. But their unscientific knee-jerk impression that the film is obviously of birds? That remains the sticking point in all of this.

No one believes that this film shows tethered balloons or aircraft. Nor is it a hoax. But almost everyone, and that includes myself, felt immediately that this film showed soaring birds. Luis Alvarez claimed that he saw birds like this in the San Francisco area. Project Blue Book chief Edward J. Ruppelt said that he saw some gulls looking like this at some later point, and on and on. But do those experiences in any thoughtful sense end this enigma? Almost all my modern UFO researcher friends just smile, even smirk, and turn away. I refuse to do so. I am somewhat ashamed of myself for my instinct to turn away from any case just because I have some instinctive reaction. Tremonton turned out to be a classic educational opportunity for me.

Let’s proceed with its history for a short moment and then get to the nub of things. After the Robertson Panel shook up the Air Force UFO policy and led to a much more restricted attitude on public releases, the Tremonton film was featured in a policy statement that contained debunking content, some of which was simply lying. Dewey Fournet read the release and said exactly that.

Then, UCLA physics professor Robert M. L. Baker Jr. (left) went to aviation engineer Wolfgang B. Klemperer (right) at Douglas Aircraft Company in Santa Monica and suggested that they analyze both the Tremonton and Great Falls films. Klemperer, who later became head of guided missile research at Douglas, was happy to comply. Baker’s analysis was tougher than Neasham and Woo’s in tone, but he more or less confirmed their basic findings. While ruling out every mundane hypothesis except soaring birds, Baker stated that the data could not definitively separate the two hypotheses, and that birds were marginally still possible (although he doubted that they could match the necessary deduced velocities).

And to further hype the public excitement, the film was shown in the famous 1956 semi-documentary film Unidentified Flying Objects: The True Story of Flying Saucers.

Ruppelt published his book, The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects, in early 1956, and it contained much middle-of-the-road Ruppeltish comment. Aeronautical engineer Paul H. Hill said that he viewed the film at the time and came away completely convinced that Newhouse was correct and the objects were extraterrestrial craft. University of Arizona atmospheric physicist James E. McDonald later interviewed both Newhouse and his wife, and they told him that the shiny metallic objects were obviously craft. In 1967–1968, the Colorado Project, using University of Arizona William K. Hartmann as its photoanalyst, also returned to the case, and Hartmann came down on the side of the skeptics.

So, what is it? Birds or saucers?

As I’ve said earlier, I cannot honor my kneejerk instinct that yells birds at me when I see these copies of old film. I cannot honor the dismissive chatter of august scientists like Alvarez or Goudsmit, when they saw something projected on a meeting room sidewall, and probably of even worse quality than what I can see. But I still have to pay attention to what is available. What’s that?

I have the witnesses telling me that it was clear to them that the objects were not birds. They were, rather, reflective disks. I have the first analysts, and the ones who took the greatest time with the freshest print, telling me that (although they had to make some best-guess assumptions as to distance) birds were out, and these things flew in patterns. I have Arthur Lundahl looking over their shoulders and telling me the same thing. I have Dewey Fournet looking over their shoulder and telling me the same thing. I have the only other early researchers (the Navy photo lab and Baker) saying, with less conviction, that basically Neasham, Woo, Lundahl, Fournet, and the Newhouses could be correct. What do I have on the debunking side? I have an “instinct” and an objection to Newhouse’s report.

Let’s address the objection first as that is at least within reason. Debunkers don’t like that the Newhouses describe the objects as metallic and like two pie pans one atop the other, as that language does not appear in the original case report. Let’s enumerate the claims as we have them:

1. The Newhouses were consistent in their retelling of how the objects were viewed and filmed. Norma Newhouse (and probably the children, ages 12 and 14) initially saw the objects high and to the east, and her husband (driving) could not. It took her about a full minute to get him to stop the car. At that time, he saw the objects himself, still quite high (about 10° from the zenith), and was excited enough by what he saw that he quickly opened the trunk and the suitcase containers to ready his camera and install the film. This was not completely easy, and it took him at least a couple more minutes to achieve and begin filming. I’d like to add two obvious additional points. First, Norma and her children therefore had around three more minutes than Delbert to casually watch the objects, while he battled the camera assemblage. Second, I have difficulty imagining that Delbert took a few calm moments off to watch closely as he did this job. Norma and the children surely had the best viewing of the early stage, and yet it seems they were not interviewed (or at least quoted) by the military.
2. Newhouse continued on his vacation in Oregon and did not report the event until afterwards. Surely, he developed and watched the film. Knowing that he had something to report, he did so upon arriving at his new assignment in Oakland, California. Thus, on August 11 (about 5–6 weeks after the filming), his superiors had him send a report and cover letter to Project Blue Book. This letter was passed on to the Pentagon and Dewey Fournet. In this initial letter, Newhouse did not describe the objects structurally at all. He merely said that they “bore no relation to anything I had seen before,” and he numbered 10–12 in a milling flight that was moving westerly. I find none of this vagueness puzzling. Newhouse is conservatively telling Blue Book what they would see on the film, and that, in his opinion, the objects were not conventional.
3. At this point, Col. William A. Adams at the Pentagon ordered a formal interview. This took place on September 10, 1952. Ruppelt later admitted that he provided a list of questions for the unnamed interviewer. He also admitted that he made a strange mistake. Since Tremonton was a film case, the standard practice was (stupidly) not to bother asking the witness about structural details. Allegedly, this would be obvious from the film. (The occasional brainlessness involved in some of this stuff beggars the imagination.) The interviewer probably did ask such a question, but he did not seem to elaborate on the answers in the written report. Newhouse later claimed that he did give more detail and actually saw such details in the interviewer’s notes, but no elaboration appears in the document. What does appear is the following: “Light from objects caused by reflection.” “Objects appeared approximately as long as they were wide, and thin.” Objects “appeared identical in shape.” “All appeared light color.” “No sound.” “No aircraft, birds, balloons, or other identifiable objects seen in the air immediately before, during, or immediately after observation.” It is my opinion that these points give us much information on what the Newhouses actually told the interviewer. Nevertheless, recent debunkers have rejected the case partly due to certain words like “metallic” or “like two pie pans, one inverted on the top of the other” not appearing in the summary.
4. In 1954, Ruppelt met with Newhouse and discussed the sighting. That’s when Newhouse told him about “metallic” and “pie pans.” I wonder, as I imagine that you do, what the critical difference between “reflective light color” and “metallic” really is. I also wonder about the difference between thin, round-shaped objects (i.e., disk-shaped) and two pie pans one atop the other (i.e., disk-shaped). I have a very strong (am I irrational?) conviction that the Newhouses consistently claimed the same detailed observation from the beginning and any griping about them not doing so is simply wrong-headed.

So what about the other problem with the case? “The film at first glance looks like soaring birds, so it probably means birds.”

I was going to write a nice analytical commentary about this but I just can’t. To trust my own knee-jerk intuition versus the following line-up of researchers and witnesses (the Newhouses, Woo and Neasham, James Chapman, Arthur Lundahl, Dewey Fournet) is just arrogant. I’m ashamed of myself for even considering such “intuition” to be credible at all. It’s human, okay. But scientifically and honestly it is simply off-base.

The only legitimate problem with the Tremonton case is that although the witnesses are of great credibility and the eyewitness testimony is powerful, the film itself does not prove the objects were extraterrestrial, as perhaps some would like. But what UFO case ever does?

Does it come even close? That depends upon one’s demands concerning proof. Since scientists require testable or repeatable or lab-bench materials, it’s not proof for them, but do the flight characteristics tell us more? The naval analysts (and Fournet) thought that they had discovered a pattern in the motions. The objects moved not randomly, or even like typical flocks of birds, but rather as groups of objects circling one another both in pairs and in larger, circular paths. If that is true, then maybe the “we-can’t-do-it” criterion is met.

I once sat and watched the film a few times in a row. I admit that I was trying to see any patterns, but that is difficult. The footage is too brief and complicated. But finally (was my mind tricking me?) I seemed to see the pattern of two great wheel routes turning in the sky as the assemblage moved away. It was rather awesome, and rather childish. But then, reading Ruppelt’s first draft of his book, there was a deleted paragraph (below) about the film. Both Ruppelt and the Navy guys had a similar experience of the great “wheel motion” in the sky.

Was there a display of great wheeling UFOs in the Tremonton sky? I’d like there to be; I think that there might even be good evidence that there was. But do I or anyone have this right?

For readers wanting another honest analysis of the case, I recommend that of my colleague, Kevin Randle, who did a yeoman’s job working on it in his blog, A Different Perspective (https://kevinrandle.blogspot.com/2013/12/newhouses-tremonton-utah-movie-revisited.html).

Read Part One of Peeking into the Corners of 1952.

Read Part Two of Peeking into the Corners of 1952.

Read Part Three of Peeking into the Corners of 1952.

Read Part Four of Peeking into the Corners of 1952.

Read Part Six of Peeking into the Corners of 1952.