Hidden Truth/Hidden Truth.iso/data/newspostings/2101-2200/2173

Internet Message Format | 1996-06-25 | 7.3 KB

Path: news.demon.co.uk!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!oleane!jussieu.fr!math.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!newsspool.doit.wisc.edu!news.doit.wisc.edu!news
From: Brian Zeiler <[e-mail]>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic
Subject: Re: Dr. Paul Hill's repulsive force field
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 18:35:10 -0700
Organization: University of Wisconsin
Lines: 152
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: f180-112.net.wisc.edu
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------6F8B1D622D44"
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (Win16; I)
Xref: news.demon.co.uk alt.alien.visitors:89670 alt.paranet.ufo:54539 sci.skeptic:74372

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

--------------6F8B1D622D44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Kevin D. Quitt wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jun 1996 13:33:05 GMT, taranr <> wrote:
> >The Tremonton film is so well known that it is shown in many different vidios
> >that are available at the local vidio store.  I'm not sure but I believe that
>
> Analysis of the video would be useless.  The original should be analyzed.

The original was indeed analyzed:

--------------6F8B1D622D44
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="UTAHFILM.TXT"

info:

 (from the book "UFO Exist! - Paris Flammonde)

July 2, 1952. Tremonton, Utah. At less than an hour
before noon, on a bright, clear morning, Warrant
Officer Delbert C. Newhouse, accompanied by his
wife and two children, was cruising casually along the
open highway a half dozen miles from Tremonton, in
northern Utah. Shortly thereafter he testified that

   . . . my wife noticed a group of objects in the
 sky that she could not identify. She asked me to
 stop the car and look. There was a group of about
 ten or twelve objects-that bore no relation to
 anything I had seen before-milling about in a
 rough formation and proceeding in a westerly di-
 rection. I opened the luggage compartment of the
 car and got my camera out of the suitcase. Load-
 ing it hurriedly, I exposed approximately thirty
 feet of fiim. There was no reference point in the
 sky and it was impossible for me to make any
 estimate of speed, size, altitude or distance. To-
 ward the end one of the objects reversed course
 and proceeded away from the main group. I held
 the camera still and allowed the single one to cross
 the field of view, picking it up again and repeat-
 ing for three or four passes. By this time all of
 the objects had disappeared. (18)

    Delbert C. Newhouse, at the time of his sighting,
had  been  graduated  from  the  naval  photographic
school, and was a veteran with nineteen years' service
as a warrant officer, logging more than a thousand
hours on aerial photography missions, and twenty-
two hundred as chief photographer.
 The equipment Newhouse employed in the motion
picture of the flight of UAO against the deep blue
morning sky was a Bell and Howell Automaster 16mm
camera on which he fortunately had time to pivot the
turret mount to the three-inch f.1 telephoto lens. The
film was Kodachrome Daylight tyne and the camera
was hand-held during the f/8 and f/16 exposure times.
 Subsequently, this motion picture was analyzed at
the Wright Patterson AFB - i.e. Blue Book's laboratory -
an examination duplicated by a second exhaustive evalu-
ation by the photographic section of the Navy's Anacostia
facilities. The former determined that the UFO were neither
airplanes balloons, and most unlikely to be birds. The sub-
sequent investigation of the other service concluded
that the objects were none of the foregoing. In view
of later official claims, it behooves one to remember
that _neither_ analysis remotely suggested that the
objects pbotographed were birds of any type.
contrary, there was almost a complete consensus that
such a deduction was untenable. Ignoring these con-
curring summations,  a decade later the Air Force
thought public amnesia sufficiently advanced for it
issue an uncirculated press release, caustically titled:
"Ode D Classic-Seagulls." It attempted to persuade
the tiny handful of people who would ever see the
material that Warrant Officer Newhouse -- with more
than a thousand hours in military aerial photography --
had filmed a flight of birds, and not known it.
  The witness, in a second deposition, a month later
recalled that he had heard no sounds, seen no exhaust
or wake effects emanating from the objects.
before, during, nor after did planes, birds, balloons, or
other recognizable phenomena appear in the UAO (unidentified aerial object)
viewing area. He restated that the one unknown which
took off on its own pursued a course opposite to its
original one and to the flight path maintained by the
remainder of the group. Newhouse was convinced
the light from the objects resulted from reflection
that they were as long as they were wide.
  The Condon Report devotes nine pages to not proving
that the Tremonton fiim shows birds. In fact, it
pointed out that the reiteration of this discounted con
clusion, as drawn by Menzel, was "phrased in a
inconsistent with the facts." (14)   America's foremost
private denigrater of ufology had written: "The pic-
tures are of such poor quality and show so little that
even the most enthusiastic home-movie fan today
would hesitate to show them to his friends. Only a
stimulated imagination could suggest that the moving
objects  are  anything but very  badly photographed
birds." (15) The Colorado project emphasized that this
description gave a "totally wrong impression that the
objects are diffcult to identify merely because of poor
photography . . . the images are small and relatively
sharp, and lack of a clear identification [attributable to
less than desirable resolution because of distances in-
volved] cannot be ascribed to poor photograpby." (16)
 The U.S. Naval Photographic interpretation Center
found, in brief, that the unknowns give the impression
of being "a light source rather than reflected light," (17)
and that no species of bird could be responsible for the
glow inherent in the objects. Added to these determina-
tions they estimated the speed of the UAO "to be
3780 mph." (18)
 The question of the Newhouse, as well as the Mari
ana, photography has been evaluated by numerous
groups, the majority of which have eliminated all
probability of misidentification of balloons, aircraft,
birds, clouds, radar foil, ice particles, and just about
anything else tangible found in the air. Not even Men-
zel has opted for temperature inversions or sundogs
in this case. There are advantages to having captured
your sighting on "celluloid." Nonetheless, most official
groups continued to have demanded of them some sort
of conclusion. The pressure resulted in various of them
persisting in the suggestion that Newhouse, a pro-
fessional observer if ever one could be found, didn't
know what he was seeing. This he concedes, but,
additionally, they strain the impression of disbelief to
the extreme when they assert that he and his family
didn't know what they _weren't_ seeing.

sources:

18. Condon, Scientific study of UFOs. p.423
14. ibid., p.422
15. Menzel and Boyd, World of Flying Saucers, p. 131.
16. Condon, p. 419.
17. Condon, p. 423.

-end-


--------------6F8B1D622D44--