The 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet

I usally only read but this was so good that i have to applaud you jkrog.
My hope is that someone like you preferably you look into the amazing video made by security guard Yalcin Yalman from Turkey.

www.youtube.com...

TUBITAK the National Observatory Center in Antalya,Turkey stated: "The objects sighted in the aforementioned footage have a structure that is made of specific material and are definitely not made up by any kind of computer animation nor are they any form of special effects used for simulation in a studio or for a video effect therefore in conclusion it was decided that the sightings were neither a mockup or hoax. "Furthermore in the last part of the report, it was concluded that these objects in the sightings that have physical and material structures do not belong in any category (such as; planes, helicopters, meteors, Venus, Mars, satellites, fire balls, Chinese lantern etc.

Agree with most on here - brilliant research and well put together thread. Now what..?? (thats meant in a nice way)....

This has got to be one of the best researched and composed post on the UFO topic I've ever read...I applaud you

Originally posted by reugen
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

Looks a lot like the German Messershmitt "Komet" or Me-163 that was built and used at the end of the war, 1944-1945.

You know I'm a very firm believer in there being other races who have visited the Earth.

But....

I'm also a realist. I wouldn't disagree that there could be many cases of early experimental craft being misidentified as flying saucers, that goes without saying. However there are those cases that just cannot be explained

Yup, classic UFO aright. Flying objects that we can't properly identify: given the quality of the film and the guesses we have to make about velocity and distance. Then when we factor in 60 year-old atmospheric science what we left with? Belief. G'luck wi' dat!

Originally posted by reugen
Looks a lot like the German Messershmitt "Komet" or Me-163 that was built and used at the end of the war, 1944-1945.

"Looks a lot like"?

To me it's an overstatement, but I guess it's subjective.

Taken from Wikipedia (on the history of Me-163):

"Five Me 163s were originally brought to the United States in 1945, receiving the Foreign Equipment numbers FE-495 and FE-500 to 503 ... On 12 April 1946, it was flown aboard a cargo aircraft to the U.S. Army Air Forces facility at Muroc dry lake in California for flight testing."

So there were only 5 of them, and they went to California, which is pretty far away from Utah.

If the Tremonton UFOs were some kind of experimental craft developed from it, how many of them would they build, and how many would they send up at once? One or two, or a whole fleet?

And were is the documentation of this craft?

And if these UFOs were experimental crafts with rocket engines, where are the chemtrails?



[edit on 23-6-2009 by Heliocentric]

What was that video about? Why did they stage a re-enactment of the interview?

reply to post by SLAYER69


To Internos: If the NY photograph was explained as a long exposure of the moon, why are the stars not exposed the same way in the photo? The stars are still dots, while the moon has been allegedly overexposed. I don't see how that is possible as the earth is rotating.

Thank you for showing that photograph, SLAYER69.

reply to post by Norge


I'm made of "specific material". The guys at the observatory aren't likely to be materials scientists. Or qualified to comment on video adulteration techiniques. Think of it this way: when you're ill do you consult an astronomer? But let's assume they are right about the astronomy.
The straights of north-western Turkey are a migrating bird of prey motorway (sharing the top honours with Gibralter). Add in a bit of bio-luminesence along the leading edge and our perceptual habit of completing lines and you have the shape you see.
If the delta shape is real and not a visual artefact, well, it's most likely a kite with a bit of luminous paint. Not suggesting the guy faked it, simply filmed someone unknown flying their kite at night. If you fly a kite at night wouldn't you make it luminous in some way? Is that a nice kite-flying wind I can hear in the recording?

Thanks to everyone for you kind words and support on for this thread. I truly hope everyone learned something, enjoyed it, and maybe if they did not believe before, now they do. The Montana Film is also another good case, although it is not as solid as this one. I would suggest following the related thread link and source links like NICAP if you want to learn more about this case and others. bluebookarchive.org is also great. UFO Hunters is a great show to watch as well (I know some do not like it but it really is). The reason I am staying with the Blue Book cases right now is because they are the most documented and researched ones. The newer ones have much less research (due to lack of funding pretty much) and there are A LOT of hoaxes these days. So again, thank you to everyone.


reply to post by Riposte


They staged the interview (after an initial one) so it would flow more smoothly for the USAF documentary, which clips are shown in the rest of the film.



Reply to Slayer69

Thank you again for your input with those pictures my friend.



[edit on 6/23/2009 by jkrog08]

I had read the odd report or two about this sighting, But as usual you have gone the extra mile in uncovering more facts about this case well done J.

I did not know there was any film available tho great find, they were not birds and not experimental craft, WHAT all together at once no way you would fly experimental craft all at the same time and in daylight!.

the Robertson panel, what a sad bunch .all they wanted to do is discredit the whole U&FO phenomenon they were just a front in my eyes.

then there is the witness/cameraman, could you wish for a better source of information? A true UFO sighting and recording excellent job

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

To Internos: If the NY photograph was explained as a long exposure of the moon, why are the stars not exposed the same way in the photo? The stars are still dots, while the moon has been allegedly overexposed. I don't see how that is possible as the earth is rotating.
Thank you for showing that photograph, SLAYER69.

Thank you for your question, but at the time i wasn't even born so the question, i'd guess, is not for me: all i know is that a closer body travels always faster than what is in the background, especially if what you have in the background is far from the camera. : after a VERY interesting discussion with nablator, i came to the conclusion that there was something wrong about that explanation, anyway there was something wrong (see my next quote): I can share my previous posts about this photo, so you can have an idea about what i think: btw, the original shot says it ALL (see below).

Originally posted by internos

this is it in its full context:

According to Project Grudge, it would be a long exposure shot of the moon

It could be a difficult to digest explanation, but its appearance would be consistent with a long exposure shot of the moon, imho.

To rule out the possibility for the cameras available at the time to take such a long exposure shot, would put to rest the explanation: but since the assessment by Project Grudge was made the same year, how come that they were even able to mention something that still didn't exist?

And how come that the stars are visible so clearly despite the visual pollution and the reflections are resolved in bright strikes? These are all indications of a long exposure shot, in my humble opinion.
Now, to compare a shot taken presently wouldn't be the best thing to do, but it does make the point: The Moon + Venus + hand shaking:

it doesn't look very different, apart the shacking.

Another possible explanation would be a multiple exposure, with shots not very distant each other:

and Blue Book archive is not available, btw

but i think there was nothing but what already posted here, regerding this case.

In the other hand, looking at Stellarium, and simulating half an hour between 17:30 and 18:00, i got a movement very different from the one of the photo (i will add some screen capture)

Sun and Moon Data for One Day
The following information is provided for New York, New York (longitude W73.9, latitude N40.7):

Monday
20 March 1950 Eastern Standard Time

SUN
Begin civil twilight 5:33 a.m.
Sunrise 6:00 a.m.
Sun transit 12:03 p.m.
Sunset 6:07 p.m.
End civil twilight 6:35 p.m.

MOON
Moonset 7:19 p.m. on preceding day
Moonrise 6:47 a.m.
Moon transit 1:28 p.m.
Moonset 8:20 p.m.
Moonrise 7:08 a.m. on following day

Phase of the Moon on 20 March: waxing crescent with 4% of the Moon's visible disk illuminated.

New Moon on 18 March 1950 at 10:20 a.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Here is it: in according to Stellarium, this should have been the Moon's motion that day at that time, between 17:30 (1) and 18:00 (2):

as you can see, it's the opposite than the expected, and (not) a small missing detail: where is the Sun? The photo was NOT taken in New York on March 20 1950 between 17:30 and 18:00, IMHO.
So, basically, some possible explanations are:
1) Stellarium is wrong
2) The photograper was a liar
3) The guys of Project Grudge were some heck of investigators since they did NOT notice this inconsistency
4) The photographer was drunk
5) The guys of Project Grudge were drunk
6) I am drunk
7) Something else i'm missing right now

Sadly, all we have is just the picture

Here is it, more or less: since the guy didn't notice anything, and since the population, didn't notice anything, i would dismiss it as some long exposure shot of the Moon. But some calculations brought me to other results.




[edit on 23/6/2009 by internos]

Originally posted by Heliocentric

Originally posted by mikesingh
So here’s another case that’s beyond any logical explanation. The analysis was inconclusive, pointing to a true account of an actual UFO sighting!

So, now that we have strong enough indicators - based on evidence - that the UFO phenomenon is really taking place, what are we going to do about it?

Not us! I wonder what the debunkers are going to do about it? Where's my friend Jim Oberg, the master debunker? Running for cover I suppose!

Cheers!

Another great thread, with a great presentation, about a case I did not knew (I confess that I know only the most famous ones, probably because here in Portugal, at the time these cases happened, the ruling dictatorship did not like to have foreign influences over the population).

But I think that ruling out the birds explanation was not properly done.

First, birds' wings are not completely opaque, when under strong sunlight, the light shines through the wings, most of what we see are the translucent feathers, and that would make them look brighter than an object that was just reflecting light.

Second, many birds, including the seagulls I see everyday, do not need to keep on flapping their wings, they can fly for a long time without a flap.

Also, if the Newhouse was a chief photographer, why did he make that misjudgement of changing the aperture of the camera? That makes me think that he had lots of practise of photography from the air, but he was not used to photograph from the ground up, if he was he would knew that the change would make the image worse, or he did not knew that camera well.

PS: an extra star for remembering deaf people, but the transcript is not exactly like what we can hear on that video, although the changes are small.

reply to post by jkrog08


Brilliant thread dude, well researched.

One thing still springs to mind, how the f did it take them a 1000 hours to come to the conclusion it was birds.. clowns

Originally posted by ArMaP
Another great thread, with a great presentation, about a case I did not knew (I confess that I know only the most famous ones, probably because here in Portugal, at the time these cases happened, the ruling dictatorship did not like to have foreign influences over the population).

But I think that ruling out the birds explanation was not properly done.

First, birds' wings are not completely opaque, when under strong sunlight, the light shines through the wings, most of what we see are the translucent feathers, and that would make them look brighter than an object that was just reflecting light.

Second, many birds, including the seagulls I see everyday, do not need to keep on flapping their wings, they can fly for a long time without a flap.

Also, if the Newhouse was a chief photographer, why did he make that misjudgement of changing the aperture of the camera? That makes me think that he had lots of practise of photography from the air, but he was not used to photograph from the ground up, if he was he would knew that the change would make the image worse, or he did not knew that camera well.

PS: an extra star for remembering deaf people, but the transcript is not exactly like what we can hear on that video, although the changes are small.

What about the estimated size and speed of the objects? Based on these estimates from the OP this eliminates the possibility of the objects being birds.

Estimated size of objects based on that distance was between 16 and 98 feet
• The estimated velocity was anywhere between 378-3748 mph depending on actual distance of objects and compensation for shaky film. Most have settled on 665 mph for a mean speed. However that is still supersonic.
• Maximum acceleration computed at 21,168 mph/sec with G-Force at 965
• Minimum acceleration computed at 1,104 mph/sec with 50 g’s
• Maximum deceleration computed at 32,448 mph/sec with 1479 g’s
• Minimum deceleration computed at 272 mph/sec at 12 g’s

Originally posted by internos

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by SLAYER69

 

To Internos: If the NY photograph was explained as a long exposure of the moon, why are the stars not exposed the same way in the photo? The stars are still dots, while the moon has been allegedly overexposed. I don't see how that is possible as the earth is rotating.
Thank you for showing that photograph, SLAYER69.

Thank you for your question, but at the time i wasn't even born so the question, i'd guess, is not for me: all i know is that a closer body travels always faster than what is in the background, especially if what you have in the background is far from the camera. : after a VERY interesting discussion with nablator, i came to the conclusion that there was something wrong about that explanation...

Internos, When jkrog08 linked to your post in the other thread, and I read that post, I had the same questions as Kidflash, but I think I figured out the answers. Because this thread is about the 1952 sighting I decided to post my reply in that thread rather than here (I didn't want a different sighting to hijack this excellent thread off of the 1952 Utah sighting, maybe that other sighting (or hoax) deserves its own thread?), however I'll provide this link to my reply there:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I think it also answers the question by Kidflash. I think you were on the right track but your theory just needed a little tweaking.

Originally posted by Erasurehead
Estimated size of objects based on that distance was between 16 and 98 feet

The problem is the "based on that distance" part, the distance was based on what?

When looking at something we can not identify, and with no references, like objects just above our heads on a clear sky, how can we be sure of the size of it? The answer is "we can not", so basing the distance and speed on a subjective measurement is not a way of being sure of it.

Newhouse said that they "resembled a fleet of B-29’s at 10,000 feet", but that means that if they were at 5,000 feet they would be half the size, at 1,000 feet they would be a tenth of the size, etc., he never stated, because he could not, what size they were, he even said that he "had no way of estimating the altitude", and with no altitude and no size known there can be no other certainty about speed and acceleration.

Kind of late on this, but AWESOME thread jkrog08!!
Star and Flag. Really appreciate the work and dedication that you put into this.
For what it's worth, I have a hard time believing the bird theory.

s&f again for the time and work you put in your threads. I never knew about this case until now. I dont think it was birds.