How, and where NASA faked the lunar orbit, landing and lift off.

APOLLO REALITY How, and where NASA faked the lunar orbit, landing and lift off.

This web page will show how, and where NASA faked the lunar approach, lunar orbit, lunar landing, and lunar take off, for all the Apollo Moon landing video's. Contrary to what many believe, the sequences were not shot in a desert, Hollywood studio, or Area 51. There may have been the odd picture taken at Area 51, and a few Apollo pictures that were taken in some remote desert, but the majority of stills and video were performed at Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia. Scientist's at NASA knew in the early 60's that a manned mission to the Moon was impossible within 8 years, and a plan to fake the Moon landings was put into operation.    NASA's fake Moon pictures were taken at various locations such as KSC, JSC, LRC, and of course the odd one or two desert locations. I would also like to point out to that the art of faking both still photographs, and movie film is as old as photography and film itself. The 1930's film "King Kong" showed a huge gorilla scaling up the Empire State building. If it's on film are we led to believe it's real? No of course not, but that is exactly what PAN's, (Pro Apollo Nutters) are claiming. Their ridiculous debunking claim is that digital manipulation of photographs and film was not available back in the 1960's, but they did not have digital artifacts back in 1930 when the film "King Kong" was made.  Langley is NASA's space research facility, and staff are sworn to secrecy. All files pertaining to the Apollo (fake Moon missions) are stored there and not due for declassification until 2026. Other artifacts including the burnt out Apollo 7 capsule which killed Grissom, Chaffe and White. They have the facilities to perform anything, fake backgrounds, simulated orbiters etc. First piece of evidence is the large 250 foot traverse crane shown below. Notice fake Moon crater surface created beneath the crane.

This crane was PURPOSELY built in 63/64 to perfect the lunar landing as close as possible to the real thing, and used to suspend both astronauts, and the LM itself. It enabled movement of the astronauts and LM in all directions, i.e., up down, left right, forward and reverse. The trial runs were so good, and with NASA, fully aware that a Moon landing was impossible, opted to use the setup for faking the alleged   film of lunar landing, and take off, whereby the flag is blown over.    According to Bobby Braun and other NASA officials the idea was to teach the astronauts how to land a rocket propelled LM. However NO ROCKET POWERED LM WAS EVER SUSPENDED FROM THIS CRANE. In any case anyone with the slightest gumption knows that it is IMPOSSIBLE to control a rocket engine. If the PAN's disagree, then perhaps they could direct me to a video or film showing how the feat was, or could be accomplished. The landings were controlled purely by traverse and lowering of the LM in the same way as a conventional crane.   Below are more pictures showing mock LM suspended from this crane. In the center (left) picture note the circular objects on the ground floor. The vast expanse of ground area beneath this crane was ideal for creating mock lunar landscapes. In reality the area was covered with gray ash, (possibly from some coal fired power station or boiler house), or plain cement. The circular objects were then raised by crane to create authentic looking Moon craters, as shown later.

The far right picture above is a time lapse sequence taken at night. Notice spotlights on crane gantry, and how it illuminates the ground surface. The mock LM was traversed full length of crane, and simultaneously lowered at the same time in order to create an authentic looking lunar landing, when viewed from within the mock LM itself. Power supply to the mock LM was by cable from crane tower. This enabled a large fan, (fitted beneath the mock LM), to create the dust scatter effect of a rocket engine as it descended to the fake Moon surface. The film shown to public of the LM supposedly blasting off from the Moon's surface was also created beneath this crane at LRC. The mock LM was simply attached to the crane, and hoisted very rapidly at the same time a pathetic looking blast off sparks was enacted beneath it. The film was then speeded up for showing to the public, and it is interesting to note that the camera filming this sequence cut short once the LM had reached the crane maximum height. In other words WHY didn't the camera continue to film the LM until it was out of view? Quite simply because it was not possible to do under the circumstances in which the "lift off" was faked.       The above pictures were taken by Bob Nye on June 20 1969, one month before Armstrong, err, supposedly stepped on the Moon. Picture on right shows the lander hovering above fake Moon crater surface beneath the crane. Believe me folks this is how it was done, even if Pro Apollo Nutters say no way. Picture on left, taken at night, looks like a realistic Moon setting, although I am in no doubt that some out there will actually say this photo is the Moon. I have heard so much BS from the Pro Apollo Nutters nothing would surprise me. The light source seen in left picture is the same light source that highlights Buzz Aldrin in the controversial picture of him allegedly on the Moon. Those lights are fixed at top of crane gantry, as shown in earlier picture.

The picture shown above shows Armstrong at the site in January 1970. This is 6 months after he supposedly landed on the Moon, and likewise Apollo 12 had done the same. Evidently he returned to the simulation site 6 months later to figure out how he could do it, having conned the world into believing he actually did land on the Moon 6 months before this picture was taken.   Pictures below show how astronauts were suspended from the crane in order to simulate low gravity. They eventually settled for an upright position with the astronaut suspended by strong elastic bungee cord, so that his feet were only just touching the ground, the same way as a baby bouncer. You can try it yourself by placing a given weight at the end of an elastic band. As the astronauts walked in a given direction, the overhead crane moved in the same direction. This enabled the astronauts to literally float along in a crude "Moon walk" fashion.     There is a classic piece of film, and I have only ever seen it once. It shows two astronauts supposedly on the Moon, but one astronaut is following behind the other in a dead straight line, and at a fixed distance. Two partners in a strange desolate place would not walk in such a stupid fashion, and so far apart. It's obvious both are following a given line/route, i.e., the line or route in which the two overhead cranes are forcing them to follow. In the pictures below, it can be seen how astronauts were suspended from this crane. It is interesting to note that high backward leg swing in far left picture. That high backward leg swing is identical to the back leg swing in the Apollo 17 photo of Harrison Schmitt supposedly tripping up on the Moon (shown right). In another video sequence of Apollo 17 astronauts supposedly cavorting on the Moon, one of them is actually suspended 2 feet horizontally off the ground. This sequence lasts for a couple of seconds, so how do NASA officials explain that, and why is it that no one else has passed comment on this totally absurd picture shot? It's clear evidence that person in space suit is suspended from wires, or some other line. The picture below shows astronaut suspended via a tubular spring to create the "bounce effect" as though they were walking in reduced gravity on the Moon.

Picture on left is a view taken from top of the Langley crane, looking down onto fake lunar surface created beneath. Picture right shows Donald Hewes beneath the Langley crane. Hewes created the fake lunar surface, and was heavily involved in the fake lunar landing and lift off video's.

PART TWO The Studio Moon Set     Still not convinced? Then maybe this NASA archive, dated 26 August 1969, and copied word for word, will change your mind. It relates to Donald Hewes, who oversaw operations/filming with the fake landing and take off. Read it, then think hard about it. Why were NASA phaffing around with fake lunar landscapes, one month AFTER Armstrong supposedly pulled it off for real? Answer, to make the fake film look ever more realistic, when future, higher quality images were broadcast to an already gullible audience.   Looking down from the top of the gantry on to the simulated Lunar Surface. James Hansen writes: "To make the simulated landings more authentic, [Donald] Hewes and his men filled the base of the huge eight legged, red and white structure with dirt and modeled it to resemble the moon's surface. They erected floodlights at the proper angles to simulate lunar light and installed a black screen at the far end of the gantry to mimic the airless lunar "sky." Hewes personally climbed into the fake craters with cans of everyday black enamel to spray them so that the astronauts could experience the shadows that they would see during the actual moon landing." (p. 375) From A.W. Vigil, "Piloted Space Flight Simulation at Langley Research Center," Paper presented at the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, 1966 Winter Meeting, New York, NY, November 27 - December 1, 1966. "Ground based simulators are not very satisfactory for studying the problems associated with the final phases of landing. This is due primarily to the fact that the visual scene cannot be simulated with sufficient realism. For this reason it is preferable to go to some sort of flight test simulator which can provide real life visual cues. One research facility designed to study the final phases of lunar landing is in operation at Langley. ... The facility is an overhead crane structure about 250 feet tall and 400 feet long. The crane system supports five sixths of the vehicle's weight through servo driven vertical cables. The remaining one sixth of the vehicle weight pulls the vehicle downward simulating the lunar gravitational force. During actual flights the overhead crane system is slaved to keep the cable near vertical at all times. A gimbal system on the vehicle permits angular freedom for pitch, roll, and yaw. The facility is capable of testing vehicles up to 20,000 pounds. A research vehicle, weighing 10,500 pounds fully loaded, is being used and is shown [in this picture]. This vehicle is provided with a large degree of flexibility in cockpit positions, instrumentation, and control parameters. It has main engines of 6,000 pounds thrust, throttle able down to 600 pounds, and attitude jets. This facility is studying the problems of the final 200 feet of lunar landing and the problems of maneuvering about in close proximity to the lunar surface."  Published in James R. Hansen, Space flight Revolution: NASA Langley Research Center From Sputnik to Apollo, (Washington: NASA, 1995), pp. 373-378.     We now go inside the Langley Research Center complex itself to see how they faked the lunar approach and close orbit of the Moon's surface. We've all seen the film supposedly taken from the LM as it approached the Moon, and then begin to orbit. The speed at which it changes from approach to lunar orbit is utterly ridiculous, as any craft traveling at that speed would crash straight into the Moon. No one could control a craft in such as way as shown in the film, and in reality no one did. The following pictures show exactly how it was done.     Size does matter believe me, especially when NASA want to create a fake lunar surface as shown in the above picture on left. It literally dwarfs the two men stood in front of it. It's unbelievable the time, trouble and expense that NASA incurred purely to fake the lunar missions. It was of course done purely to convince the world they were the leaders in space. This very large picture, and others were used in conjunction with a rail mounted camera, which also focused on a large rotating PLASTER PARIS model of the Moon, ) shown on the right).   NASA knew, (after Kennedy's speech in 61), that a lunar landing before 1970 was impossible. Realizing this they had no option but to fake the missions. A program was launched at LRC to design props/backgrounds etc. to convince the media they had achieved the goal set by Kennedy. The pictures above were scanned from a book, hence the poor quality, however the following pictures are from NASA.     The high resolution picture above left shows a 20' diameter sphere which can be rotated from below. In the left of that picture can be seen a huge blank placard. This is the scene before LRC staff began work on converting the sphere to an authentic looking Moon complete with craters, ( for lunar approach), and the placards were to be lunar orbit. Notice also the rail track around placards, (there were 3 placards in all). Note moving trolley on that track. The camera was mounted on that trolley. It first began to film the rotating sphere, (lunar approach), it then swung around and began scanning the fake lunar surface on placard, (lunar orbit).      The picture above right shows the sphere after modeling work. Pretty impressive eh? Notice how background is in the dark. Remove that bloke from the picture and you could EASILY pass this photo as being taken by the Apollo command module circling the Moon. It is evident that there were many people involved in the faking of Apollo, and NASA claim that if it were faked someone would have spoken out by now. Well LRC staff are sworn to secrecy, and they must have been 100% in favor of the fakery, otherwise they would not have participated in the first place.     The two pictures above show how LRC made "plaster paris" copies of the Moon craters on the placards. They are checking that the craters are exactly to scale and layout, as craters shown on the lunar photographs previously taken by high magnification telescope. (Editors Note: Lunar Orbiter Photos 1965-1967) Notice the sphere in left hand picture after modeling work. This sphere had a light inside it which was translucent on the outside, hence the appearance. The large placards with Moon craters was also backlit. Turn off all your lighting, and you end up with the picture shown below left. This is how the Moon would look in the void of space if you could get close enough to it, however no one, not even Armstrong could get anywhere near to the real thing.     NASA claim that picture on the right is far side of Moon, taken by Apollo 8. Compare this sphere with one shown above in left hand pic. It speaks for itself does it not? In all of these pictures notice the black background. This of course made it easier for touching  up photo's to ensure that background space was indeed black.     These two pictures prove that you do not need pressurized suits to create an authentic Moon approach or orbit. Take a film whilst approaching the plaster paris model, and it would be enough to convince a gullible audience that film was taken whilst approaching the Moon.   This final picture shows Charlie Duke (pointing), and John Young, at the simulator controls for lunar approach/orbit. The picture on TV screen is reminiscent of the pictures we saw on our TV screens. We were told it was the Moon, but the picture showing on TV screen in photograph is not the Moon. It is a camera filming the plaster paris model of Moon. Both John Young and Charlie Duke were heavily involved in faking of the Apollo Moon missions.   So there you have it. I have shown how NASA faked lunar approach/orbit, and lunar landing/take, so next time you see a film on TV of any Apollo craft supposedly approaching, orbiting, landing on, or taking off from the Moon, you will know exactly how it was done.

This work was created by an unknown Author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Pegasus R.C or its members. However the presentation is well done and contains much historical data and photographs not easily found, and as it touches on the subject of NASA coverup, we felt it a valuable addition. The reader is left to form their own conclusions. The original and other pages concerning this issue can be found at... APOLLO REALITY

JOHN LEAR- Endymion Lunar Operations

JOHN LEAR-
The Living Moon Exposes Endymion Lunar OperationsCommand Post
.. Endymion Crater Clipped from Mike Deegan's Full Moon image (see here)
In a freak coincidence. At 6:30 am October 7, 2009, Bill Penn of California was watching the moon through his reflector and saw a city in full view in Endymion. He grabbed a pen and paper and started sketching what he could see.
A week or so later Bill brought the drawings to Las Vegas and we compared them with the moon photos shot by Mike Deegan from the UK.
We then had Allan Sturm of lunomaly.com make transition video between Mike Deegans photo and Bill Penns sketch of what he saw drawn directly on Mike’s photo..
We know that most of the near side of the moon is hidden by holographic or other kinds of camouflage measures. Somehow at 5:30 am on October 7 the camouflage became inoperable or was turned off for a  short time giving us a view of what is really up there.
.. Sketch of what Bill Penn saw overlaid onto Endynion Crater Click image above for video animation MP4 fornat
.. With description added

A Strange Afternoon: The Collinsville, Connecticut UFO Incident, December 13th, 1999

From AboveTopSecret.com  Thread: A Strange Afternoon: The Collinsville, Connecticut UFO  Incident, December 13th, 1999 Posted by jkrog08, on August 15, 2009 at 14:58 GMT .. This is an incredible case that has had extensive research put into by MUFONCT (Connecticut MUFON) and still lacks any reasonable alternate explanation of the very strange phenomena these four credible witnesses ranging in age from 12 to 80 saw. This is also yet another top case that has received little or no attention hardly anywhere in my opinion. There are two noticeable parts to this sighting, one observed from long range, and the other observed from a much closer range, with the totality of the sighting lasting about 40 minutes. There is also a fairly extensive analysis as well. Unfortunately (as in many top cases) there are no actual photographs known to exist, but there is much of everything else important. In the end, as always, it is up to every one of you to make up your own mind on what happened on the strange afternoon of December 13th, 1999 in Collinsville, Connecticut.  Chapter Summary Strange Contrails A UFO Close-Up The Investigation Alternate Explanations Official Conclusions and My Conclusions All non-specified images courtesy of www.temporaldoorway.com...

1) Strange Contrails Before we start I want to quickly go over the witnesses (which chose to remain anonymous): Two adult men, 49 (called “Y”) and 51(called “F”) The 12 year old son of “F” called “S” An 80 year old female business associate called “W”  .. Google Earth image overlooking Collinsville, Connecticut  This whole strange event starts at around 3:30 PM EST outside of an antique store in Collinsville, Connecticut on December 13th, 1999. The witness’s (F) son (S, who was twelve) was playing outside of the store when he ran in to tell his father “Dad, dad, something’s falling from the sky.” After being ignored the first time by his father the son came running back inside saying “Dad, you’ve got to come and see.” When his father finally went outside he reported that he witnessed a contrail, similar to that of an aircraft “dropping very slowly”. The direction of the contrail was straight down and the witness reported the width of the trial to be wider than a typical jet. .. Map showing position of the sightings Suddenly there was a “burst” and ”bright balls of light” from the contrail which had the witnesses thinking a plane had just exploded. However, the “contrail” continued its’ same heading before disappearing in a flash behind the near by hill. .. Investigator sketch (under witness direction) showing the appearance of the contrails After the father went inside feeling uneasy that he might have just witnessed a plane crash he asked his business associate(Y) to come take a look. When they went back outside there was another, second contrail. It appeared less wide than the first and was to the left of where the first one appeared but followed the same direction and pattern. It too had a “burst” mid way through its decent before it disappeared behind the hill like the previous one did. Suddenly the three witnesses saw a white dot comparable to a star appear in the sky. It got somewhat bigger then started showing a contrail, the witnesses saw 5 contrails(all displaying the same characteristics apparently) in all. Feeling somewhat scared the witnesses went inside.  Interview report of the witness “Y”:  Y, age 49, was one of at least four witnesses to an event that occurred on Monday, December 13, '99' at between 1500 and 1600 hours (EST). The witness was positive of the date since it was St. Lucia day, the beginning of his Christmas, but unsure of the particular day of the week (which was later determined from the calendar). He was certain of the time also, since one of his co-workers, F, drives his son, S from school to the antique shop (where they both work) at the same time each day. Both the co-worker and the son were witnesses, as well as an 81-year-old woman (also an employee of the antique store) named W.  The event actually takes place in two parts. Initially, F came in through the front door of the shop and alerted Y to the event. Upon exiting the front door onto the sidewalk, Y's attention was directed toward the west whereupon he observed what he described as a "light shower". Trails of light/light flashes were "coming down in slow motion through the sky " from approximately 60 degrees above the horizon. One of the "lights" split into "two balls of light" and continued to fall below the horizon. These light balls were numerous, occurred one at a time with one disappearing below the horizon before the next one began to fall, were bright, and left no "trail". Each one took approximately 60 seconds from appearance in the sky until it fell below the horizon, and they continued to materialize and fall for 20 minutes. During this event the witness was in and out of the store assisting customers. All falling objects originated and fell between 250 degrees and 260 degrees (magnetic). The witness believes that at least one falling object hit something because there was a bright flash just after it fell below the horizon.  The weather was clear; similar to the day that this interview took place, and we were facing almost directly into the setting sun which was still above the horizon at 1530 hours on the day of the interview. Y reports that on the day of the event the sun had already set behind the steep and tall ridgeline that comprises the western horizon. This interviewer believes that this must have been the case due to the reported time, and the fact that it was nearly impossible to look to the west during the interview because of the brightness of the setting sun. The witness reports that the light conditions were "dusky" during the event, which would have pegged the time at 1600 hours or later. Sunset was at 1612 hours on December 13.  It should be noted that the mountain range or ridgeline to the west is quite close to the position of the observers (less than 3 kilometers), making the top of the hill, which is the actual western horizon, approximately 20 degrees up from level. In addition, just over the hilltop lies Nepaug Reservoir.    The following is the site photo with the red dot showing the approximate origination elevation and azimuth of the contrails, all of which terminated at the horizon reportedly(From the antique shop perspective). .. ..

2) A UFO Close-Up The twelve year boy went back outside, only to come back into the shop to tell his father “you have to come outside”. The father went outside and looked south, southeast where he, his son, and his associate saw an “object with a ball next to it”. According to the witnesses the object was approximately bullet shaped and had two fins blended smoothly into the surface of the UFO. The bullet-like UFO’s size was estimated at no less than 12 feet across and no more than 120 feet across, with the sphere significantly smaller.. According to the witness the color was a soft medium blue-grey, with a non-metallic look. Both objects (the “ball” and “bullet”) appeared to be seamless in design(although “Y” believes he saw a longitudinal seam on the bullet-like object). Additionally there were no windows, engines, or exhaust observed on or near any of the objects, as there was also no sound heard at this time. The objects were moving left(north) from the observers’ perspective, this heading was taking the objects towards the witnesses’ canoe shop. The following photo is showing the approximate location of the objects as seen by the witness’ at the antique shop: .. Witness’s sketches: .. Drawn by “F”  .. Drawn by “F”  .. Flight path according to “F” **Important note on above sketch:  This image shows the views of the object based on their position on the trajectory. It has not yet (12/24/99) been determined if the curvature represents a real trajectory or not. The relative elevations do not (and are probably not intended to) match the site reenactment (also note East is really SE and W is really NW); at disappearance, the elevation was reduced by about 10 or more degrees from appearance, though that may have been a perspective effect. .. Drawn by “S” (12 years old) Excerpt from investigators transcript of recorded notes: (118) F walked out to the middle of the entrance to the parking lot to the East of the original observation point (this suggests he needed to do so to keep it in sight, which implies a fairly rapid speed, and a pause on the part of the witness to take it all in). The witness noticed no sound, and called to Y to come see. S is with F.  (123) A flock of birds took off from the area of the mountains. It was a large flock and the type was not identified by the witnesses, who indicated they were common in the area. They may have been starlings. (120) They step more to the North. (126) The objects were moving fairly fast, but because they made no notable noise "it didn't seem fast." The object passed the canoe building roof and its course terminated over the garage in the photo (225) at an elevation of about 30 degrees. The time required was less than a minute. The witness estimated the object passed over the canoe shop, in terms of its distance from him. www.temporaldoorway.com... According to the witness’ it was obvious the ball was not attached to the other object in any observable way. The ball seemed to float above the left side of the bullet object and eventually totally left the object by “moving about 4 times the previous distance and vanishing without any acceleration”. The witness’s also contend that there was no tail on the bullet-like object, just a flat end. “F” also states that the observed “fins” on the UFO were nothing like any on a conventional aircraft. “F” also stated that the strange “non-metallic silver color with no reflections” fascinated him. Another interesting note is the “droning hum” sound “F” heard when the object did pass nearly overhead in the antique shop parking lot:  As the object passed nearly overhead, a droning hum was heard. The sound was similar in pitch to a sound between 125 Hz and 500 Hz, probably closer to between 250 and 500 Hz (derived by the investigator comparing the pitch of several tones from a Casio CZ101 through a graphic equalizer with the witness attempt to pitch the sound). The witness thought that the sound was felt more than heard, and indicated it seemed to feel like it was affecting the top of his head rather than his ears.  www.temporaldoorway.com... .... Interview of “Y” transcript The second portion of the event began when F, again says; "you're not going to believe this one, come out and see this". Y exits through the front door and sees a large object slowly and silently travelling from west to east at about twice the height of the buildings. He describes it as a "zeppelin" looking thing, silver-gray in color (unlike any color he had ever seen) with a dark gray line horizontally around the middle. The object had a round sphere below it. At first it seemed that the sphere was actually attached to the larger object but after a few minutes it dropped away and moved off in another direction. He reports that there was absolutely no sound and noticed birds flying in the opposite direction of the objects' travel. It took between 5 and 10 minutes for this object to travel from its initial position at approximately 270 degrees (magnetic), directly overhead at between 1.5 and 2 stories in altitude, and on to 40 degrees (magnetic) where it disappeared from view over the northeastern horizon. The initial heading seemed to be 90 degrees (magnetic) but changed to 40 degrees (magnetic) after it passed over the buildings. Y used the "escalating hypothesis" technique i.e. "at first I thought it was a weather balloon", and described the object as "bullet shaped" and "never seen anything like it before". The object was approximately 5 inches at arms length and was too large to be covered by his open hand at arms length. The entire distance that the object traveled, given its low altitude, from the initial observation until it passed the northeastern horizon is approximately 3 miles. The entire event, including both portions, lasted approximately 30 minutes. Exact distances in the above discussion can only be determined with the use of topographic maps that were unavailable to this investigator at the time of this report.  The excited and bewildered demeanor of this witness, and his concurrent observations, i.e. "noticed birds flying the opposite direction" and "saw a bright flash after the object fell behind the horizon", lend credibility to this witness and his account of what was actually observed that day. www.temporaldoorway.com... The bullet-like craft then disappeared from view over the horizon (past the canoe shop) and was not seen again. It is interesting to not that “F” stated he was surprised that he felt no fear for himself or his son when the object was passing directly overhead them. The witnesses also reported seeing multiple “boxy cargo planes” circling the area shortly after the event, as if they were looking for something in the hills, which is where the contrails seemed to flash out of view at. One of the planes was identified by the witness as a Skyvan aircraft.

3) The Investigation The investigation was carried out by the Connecticut MUFON, which dispatched two field investigators to interview the witness, collect data, etc. According to the investigators all attempts at leading the witnesses or any other forms used to discern inconsistencies consistent with hoaxes failed. They also noted other accounts, such as the concurring statements about birds purposefully flying in the opposite direction of the oncoming craft and other consistencies lend further credibility. In the investigators opinion the witnesses were not lying about what they saw. Bases on the witnesses’ sketches a geometry program was used to postulate the exact shape and orientation of the UFOs. The following images are the result of that work: .. Perspective View .. Front View .. Left View .. Spatial Arrangements and Angle  .. Perspective View In this arrangement The two objects are approximately the same diameter. The sphere is slightly above the centerline of the bullet, slightly ahead of the central axis, and very close to the bullet.< If the objects were directly level with the observer, the angle of pitch would be about 30 degrees and roll also close to 30 degrees. Because of the fact that the witness was looking upward at an estimated angle of 25 degrees, both pitch and roll would be greater than thirty degrees. www.temporaldoorway.com... .. Another Angle  .. Different Sphere/Bullet Orientation  .. Another Angle From New Orientation  .. Alternate Stub Wing Configuration Those all represent the likely true appearance of the UFOs based on the available evidence. A lot of pictures I know, but it is truly important we dissect this UFO from all angles so we can get a decent idea of what the witnesses’ saw , so we can try to come to any mundane explanations ourselves, and maybe someone who knows something about objects of this shape will see this detailed analysis and speak up. ;)  In addition to interviewing the witnesses’ and making the detailed computer graphics shown above, the investigators looked over the area in general to get a good perspective on things. Here is the investigator report: 12/27/99 2:45 PM-4:15 PM (Investigator 1)  The purposes of the second site visit were    Perform a tour of the area to become familiar with major features.  Obtain a detailed map of the downtown Collinsville area.  Determine the possible source / type of birds mentioned in the account.  Determine the correctness of the sun analysis by direct observation.  Perform a search for any debris which might have been resulting from a hoax perpetrated by a third party on the witnesses (i.e. balloons, etc.)  Determine if a search of Sweetheart Mountain for debris from the contrail source was feasible, in the event it became justified by research results.  Determine the type and quantity of local air traffic on the same day of the week / time as the observations.  Informally canvass if the opportunity was presented.  The following results were obtained:  Perform a tour of the area to become familiar with major features - I was able to drive around most of the areas in the directions observed. These included:  The top of the hill to the South East, including a look at the tall conifer (seen from Observation Point 2). That tree is about seventy feet tall. The town hall also has a tall radio antenna with many projecting aerials. A historical society operates a museum in that area, but it is only open on weekends in the winter.  The canoe shop seen from Observation Point 2.  Cavalry Cemetery - on a direct line from the canoe shop / Observation Point 2 and the tall conifer. Interestingly, the footings for an old bridge cross the river and point directly toward the garage over which the objects were seen to disappear (see the photo of Observation Point 3).  Sweetheart Mountain - (the mountain toward which the contrails were directed) I drove South West to Rt 4 and then North on Barnes Hill Rd past the Phelps Dam. The top of the mountain may be accessible to hikers, but there is no road.  Obtain a detailed map of the downtown Collinsville area - I was unable to find any such map so far. The town engineer and town planner were both unavailable.  Determine the possible source / type of birds mentioned in the account - Three types of birds were observed in the post 3:30 PM time frame: Starlings, flying South West to North East and vice versa, apparently heading to / from roosting areas South West of the town center; seagulls, flying essentially South to North; geese, flying East to West. Flocking behavior among the starlings was normal within that time frame and may suggest that the behavior of the birds during the sighting was coincidental. Specific starting point and direction of the bird flock should be determined from the witnesses.  Determine the correctness of the sun analysis by direct observation - The sun was seen to touch the mountain shortly after the 3:30 time frame, slightly later as would be expected to result from the passage of two weeks. Thus, the shadow predicted by the sun analysis is confirmed.  Perform a search for any debris which might have been resulting from a hoax perpetrated by a third party on the witnesses (i.e. balloons, etc.) - One possible analysis of the second incident might be that the objects seen were balloons (which was suggested by one of the witnesses). If so, it would be possible (though unlikely) that the disappearance of the objects would be from the balloon having burst. I examined the dam on the river, the trees on the far side of the river (starting at the cemetery and working south to the shore), the shore on the far side of the river, and the side of the road from there, south along 179. The only finding of note was a grey plastic sheet found, photographed in situ and removed for examination. This sheet was in an incorrect location (South West of the sighting location), formed no particular shape suggestive of the reported objects, bore a large printed tag, was partly buried in leaves and somewhat frozen to the ground. Nevertheless, the material was removed for further examination, and to allow a sample to be shown to the witnesses, in light of their description of the object color and luster.  Determine if a search of Sweetheart Mountain for debris from the contrail source was feasible, in the event it became justified by research results - The size and lack of access to Sweetheart Mountain means that a specific and high probability of finding physical evidence would be needed to justify a search. No road seems to lead to the top, so all access would need to be on foot.  Determine the type and quantity of local air traffic on the same day of the week / time as the observations - The day was partly / mostly cloudy, so opportunities for observing air traffic were limited. Nevertheless, only two distant, high altitude airliners were observed during the visit.  Informally canvass if the opportunity was presented - Four people were questioned. 1) a woman ice fishing on the far side of the river, who believed the ice had not formed at that time and had not seen anything, 2) a bicyclist on 179 was asked if he biked that road every day about the same time, but he did not, and, in any event, had seen nothing; 3) two employees of the canoe shop, only one of which was working that day - neither had seen anything.  www.temporaldoorway.com... The possible course of the objects can be inferred by the witness testimonies, as can the theoretical speed, altitude, distance, etc. Since two witnesses gave detailed reports of the sighting two angular measurements are available for us to view. The following links will take you to either the angular data, comprehensive weather conditions, or the sun angle data, all are highly detailed and recommended:  • Link to Angular/Trajectory Data • Link to Sun Angle Data • Weather Conditions

4) Alternate Explanations Orbital Debris Obviously the first mundane explanation we should consider would be the contrails. Considering their odd angle of descent and the flashes seen one would likely postulate that the witnesses’ might have seen orbital debris falling back to Earth. However, after a closer inspection of the facts surrounding known decayed orbits that day this is not possible and is therefore eliminated. Orbital Data for 12/13/99 Meteors Still on the contrails, meteors are also a possible explanation for what the witnesses’ saw that day. Considering the data this can not be entirely ruled out, however existing documentation lists very few meteors known to leave any contrail type phenomena, especially not in the length of duration that was seen.  According to the following chart of this year's Geminids (www.imo.net...), compiled by the International Meteor Organization, the peak was actually 12/14/99; on the date in question, at the time of the sighting, the rate was roughly 38 per hour  www.temporaldoorway.com... Link To Meteor Data Aircraft Obviously conventional aircraft are known to regularly cause contrails, so this can not be entirely ruled out. However, considering there are no major air-traffic lanes over Collinsville there is no apparent reason for that number or orientation of contrails to have been observed.. Here are some more issues with this theory: The closest airway is significantly south of the sighting location, there is no way contrails from that airway would be seen at the location. The apparent “burst” and “flash” of the trails seem to defy any known conventional phenomena. All in all this explanation can not be completely ruled out, however—logic and available facts point to no likely way that any mundane explanations could apply to the observed contrails and their very odd flight characteristics. Further Data Balloons Obviously there are few alternate explanations for the actual UFOs. In my opinion balloons is a ridiculous theory, BUT we must consider everything. I know of no known balloons that would remotely fit the description and flight characteristics of the UFOs, as well account for the humming sound. Also the overall look and color of the UFOs do not match any known balloon, let alone the ball that was floating around the bullet-like craft, which then proceeded to go off in its’ own direction in an apparent vanishing act.

5. Official Explanations and My Conclusions There are no current official explanations given for this event so I will quickly get into my conclusions of this very interesting case.  As stated above this case is very intriguing for many reasons. First off we have multiple ‘exploding contrails’ that appear to have no rational cause in any mundane extent. The apparent steep direction of the contrails seems to me to suggest a possible decent from space, but that is only a theory and could be wrong. Then we have multiple witnesses’ claiming they saw a truly unusual and obviously non-conventional (well at least by public knowledge) bullet shaped aircraft, with another sphere object apparently hovering around the front of it that just passed over this short stretch of town before the sphere shot off and disappeared in a totally different direction than the main craft. We have one of the witnesses describing a strange humming sound, we have multiple witnesses describing a totally unheard of aircraft configuration, color, reflectivity, and propulsion means. Was it a coincidence there were multiple contrails seen descending shortly before the UFOs were seen? What was this object doing? What were the aircraft looking for after the sighting?  With all the extensive investigation done by CT MUFON apparently ruling out any probable mundane explanations for both the contrails and UFOs it seems all we are left with is either  A) A hoax, but why? The witnesses’ had NOTHING to gain from this. They also resisted all common tactics used to uncover hoaxes. B) A true UFO event, whether it is a secret government project, alien, inter-dimensional, time travel related, or whatever.  Another question I have is why did not more people witness these contrails and UFOs? Of course there are many reasons for this, but none-the-less it raises some questions in my mind. However, to counter the above statement is a 40 plus hour investigation by professionals who believe this to be a true event, and I must say that personally I feel the same. I see no reason to think this was a hoax, but I can only judge from what I have researched, as I did not personally interview the witnesses. This is a truly unknown case in my humble opinion, although it is unlikely we will ever be able to solve it, it is defiantly worthy of widespread view, if for nothing else, to get this information out to the public, so they can all see that there are indeed strange events going on ALL OVER the planet. Some of these events (like this one) appear to lack any known explanations that mundane science can provide, so hence it comes to ufology or “fringe science”.  This case, in my personal opinion, must ‘officially’ go into a unknown category(and it will likely stay there). I see no reason to rush to a hoax conclusion and further investigation as appeared to pretty much rule out anything mundane. This does not mean alien, Galactic Federation of Light, Time Travelers, or even a super black government craft. It truly means UNKNOWN, all we can do is make theories based upon other events and evidence. In my personal opinion I am leaning more towards alien in origin, again this is based on multiple amounts of research of events that seem to point more towards that explanation more than any others. But I am still open to anything else as a explanation, if the proper evidence is presented. As always it is up to everyone to make their own conclusions based on the available evidence supplied. I also need to say that the researchers at the Connecticut branch of MUFON did a superb job of investigating this case, which made it possible for me to present such a case here to ATS. Anyways, I hope everyone finds this case as interesting as I did and hope people take a real and legitimate look at this case and many others like it(without photos, videos, etc), as in my opinion, this and others show that something truly is going on in our skies. :cool: :up:  Sources temporaldoorway.com  mufon.com  newenglandmufon.com MUFONCT

The 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet

From AboveTopSecret.com  Thread: The 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet Posted by jkrog08, on June 22, 2009 at 13:50 GMT .. This great case has a very rare film taken from the witness, as well a great film analysis from the USAF itself regarding an in-depth case study of the July 2nd, 1952 Tremonton, Utah UFO Fleet sighting by Navy Officer Delbert Clement Newhouse. The images in the film consist of the actual recorded video from 1952 showing what appears to be a ”fleet” (multiple UFOs usually in formation seen hovering for an extended period) sighting in Utah. The rest of the video consists of the actual interview, albeit rehearsed for documentation, of the witness Officer Newhouse and a Project Blue Book investigating officer. It also shows an in-depth and commentated analysis of the film by USAF personal. The rest of the thread will provide a more detailed discussion and overview of the official government analysis, as well as my personal opinion on the case. This is yet another truly astonishing case in Ufology that many people do not know about and continues the saga of the “UFO Wave” from the late 1940’s to today. This film and case has been very briefly talked about on ATS and is not widely known among the general UFO interested public. It deserves much more considering the case.  Hynek Classification: DD Chapter Summary Details of The Sighting and Important Facts Alternate Explanations and Conclusions  My Conclusions

1. Details of The Sighting and Important Facts Another great case involving a seasoned military witness amps up the UFO phenomena even more in the early 1950's. Technology was starting to boom at this time as a post war U.S. took over as the predominant superpower, and lucky for UFO researchers more technology means better and more imaging devices (i.e.; cameras). As willl be shown below, camcorders played a major part in documenting this case with nice video evidence. This case was among others included in the Robertson Panel , a much more serious and prudent UFO brain trust and investigation formed to take UFO research by the government to the next level following a mass of major UFO sightings, one of which placed multiple UFOs directly over the nations capitol a couple weeks after this event.  Details of The Sighting .. Photo of Officer Newhouse courtesy of nicap.org At 11:00AM on July 2nd, 1952, Delbert Newhouse was driving from Washington D.C. to Portland Oregon for vacation on US highway 30-south with his wife and two children(Delbert and Anne). Seven miles into Tremonton, Utah his wife, Norma, noticed a group of strange objects in the sky and the car was pulled over to investigate. Luckily Newhouse had a camcorder in his luggage for the vacation, he proceeded to get it, place the celluloid film inside, and film the unknown objects for around 40 seconds. Keep in mind this was a 21 year military (US Navy) veteran who was still on active duty, coincidently he was also a Chief Photographer. He stated that he had never seen anything like this before and did not know what they were. By the time he got his Bell and Howell 16 mm camcorder out the objects had nearly made it to the horizon, Newhouse stopped filming once the objects were no longer visible to him. In addition to being a Chief Photographer Newhouse also had over 2,000 flying hours and stated that he had never seen anything resembling the “12 saucer shaped discs”. Their color and appearance was “silvery and metallic looking, like they were made of bright, polished metal”. He stated that their pattern of flight was somewhat circular and their sized resembled a fleet of B-29’s at 10,000 feet. Newhouse also said that the objects did not remain in formation at all times, with one object breaking off entirely and going off somewhere in the distance, in addition the objects made no sound or had any visible wake or exhaust. The weather was clear and sunny with excellent visibility. Newhouse stated that he was disappointed in the film compared to what he actually saw with his eyes. Newhouse admitted to making the mistake of setting the focus on ‘infinity’ instead of “F-8” but he was understandably shaken and excited. Newhouse then contacted the USAF and Navy and sent in his film. Newhouse also stated that before, during, or after no planes, balloons, or birds appeared in the sky while he was there. .. Image of vintage Bell and Howell camcorder courtesy of tfgtransfer.com .. Map showing location of incident in Utah, USA The Video Delbert Newhouse UFO Footage - 1952 - Tremonton, Utah .. YouTube Link NOTE: It has recently came to my attention that some members on here are deaf, so I will post a link to the transcript of the interview below for those who can not hear.  Newhouse Interview Transcript From my experience in investigating these Blue Book cases it seems that most of the time the first explanation is the right one, then after a year or so (sometimes more) it gets some ridiculous ‘normal’ explanation that does not make sense. Most of these early (47-65) cases stayed ‘unknown’ until the mid sixties when I believe a much broader cover-up began, as seen by the countless ludicrous explanations for these cases (See final explanation of Chiles-Whitted Case ). Important Information First let's start with some information on the witness, Delbert Newhouse: Full name was Delbert Clement Newhouse  Married with two children, a boy and a girl 12 and 14 years old  21 year veteran of the US Navy  Official rank was Chief Warrant Officer  Official job was Chief Photographer  Over 2,000 hours filming and documenting US military air missions  Graduated from the Naval Photographic School  39 years old at time of sighting Now let?s look at sighting information and the analysis of the objects in the film: Time of sighting was 11AM MST Date of sighting was July 2nd, 1952  Location was Tremonton, Utah on US highway 31- south  Film was captured by a Bell and Howell 16mm video cameras Lens was 3 inch  Focus was infinity 16 frames per second Multiple lens filters were used; F8 and F16  Film type was celluloid Estimated distance from observer was 5 miles 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  It appears that the objects were self-illuminating Evidence of abrupt changes in flight path throughout film Certain objects appear to remain motionless while others move freely Objects have same color and shape Film was reprinted in 35mm by the USAF for better clarity and to avoid further degradation of the original  Position of Sun at time of sighting was 64.5 degrees elevation and 131 degrees azimuth No balloons in the area No planes in the areaDistance, velocity, and weather information courtesy of nicap.org  .. More Information: USAF Official Analysis Photogrammetric Analysis Tremonton Directory The Montana Footage In an effort not to derail the topic of this I will only very briefly go over this and provide some links for further research. In August of 1950 Nick Mariana captured film of two objects that appeared to be rotating discs in the sky over Great Falls, Montana. This film was surrounded in controversy as Mariana accused the USAF of keeping some of the film and not returning it. It was later discovered that the initial USAF Blue Book investigation contained false information regarding the film, it has been put forth that Mariana saw two fighter jets but that is still highly disputed to this day. The film was used as reference and comparison to the Newhouse film and contained many similarities that are definitely intriguing. The following are some links to more information:  ufologie.net  Mariana Film

2. Alternate Explanations and Conclusions As we saw in the last chapter there was much research carried out by the USAF and this was taken very seriously. The conclusions reached by the facts of the film analysis point to one of two things in my opinion. One is that this is actual video of objects of unknown technology, two is that this was a flock of birds that led to erroneous lab results from the lack of reference points, approximate distance, and modern film analysis technology. In this chapter I will go over the alternate explanations that could be possible to discount the UFO theory, as well the official conclusions reached by Blue Book.  Alternate Explanations There was put forth a variety of possible explanations to account for the fleet of objects filmed by Newhouse. Some put forth were pillow balloons, birds, insects, spider webs, “flying spiders”, reflected plane headlights, aircraft flares, temperature inversion, hoax, and more. None of those panned out with further research and logical conclusions, and in fact the only theory that even remotely fit was the “flock of seagulls theory”. We will go into that theory now.  .. Picture courtesy of flickr.com The Bird Theory The film analysis was done by the USAF at Wright Field (home of Project Blue Book and Air Force Intelligence) and the Navy’s Anacostia film laboratory . More than 1,000 man hours went into the research of the Newhouse film with personal making graph plots of frames, relative and apparent motion calculations, and light intensity variation studies. Interestingly enough, Blue Book ruled the bird theory out first and concentrated on other things such as balloons or aircraft, the consensus that the objects seen in the film were not birds was almost completely unanimous. The final analysis by Blue Book came to the conclusion that the objects in the video were not birds for the following reasons: There is no flapping or fluttering in any of the detailed analysis of the film. If the objects were birds, even at 10,000 feet you would still be able to see the characteristic ‘wing flapping’, which was not seen at all.  It was also the opinion of the experts that the objects were self-luminous because there was no blinking while passing through 60 degrees of arc. This means that what Newhouse saw could not have possibly been birds because birds are not self-luminous ! .. Image of flight path of ‘fleet’ courtesy of nicap.org .. Graph showing angular velocity and position courtesy of nicap.org .. Memorandum to the Director of Naval Intelligence courtesy of nicap.org .. Here is a good freeze frame showing the ‘fleet’ Courtesy of ufologie.net .. For comparison purposes here is a picture of a gander of Snow Geese in a V-type formation courtesy of flickr.com .. Here is a summary of the findings of the analysis by the USAF and Navy teams courtesy of bluebookarchive.org .... The following is the report by the military personal after conducting Photogrammetric and Spectroscopic tests on the film. I have highlighted the pertinent areas with a yellow and red underline for ease of discovery. All original document images courtesy of bluebookarchive.org.  Page 1: .. .. Page 2: .. . Page 3: ..

Official Conclusions Those documents that I just showed pretty much dismiss any alternate explanations in any likely probability. So if the objects were not spiders, chaff, planes, or birds what were they? When one takes into account the velocity and acceleration calculations as well, it appears that whatever these objects were that they are still not currently known to exist by anyone, lest maybe a few privy government officials. In the same year of the sighting, due to a continuing influx of sightings (especially the “DC Flap”) a special panel, called the Robertson Panel, made up of qualified scientists led by Dr. H.P. Robertson was set up by the CIA to further investigate the UFO phenomena before Blue Book made a more public final conclusion of their research on the events they had investigated. Blue Book presented its best cases, including this one to the panel for review. The panel’s main goal was to ‘debunk’ all UFO reports in the “interest of national security” as they felt the “hysteria” of public reports wasting the military’s time was distracting the main purpose of the military. They concluded that the majority of cases could be explained by mundane explanations and the remaining minority could too with further study. Well the Robertson Panel, which was heavily infused with CIA officials and world renowned professional skeptics like Donald Menzel, Dr. Condon, and many others came to another conclusion; They said that the objects were “very obviously a flock of birds” and closed the case. The astronomer of the group, Dr. Donald Menzel found that a incorrect procedure was used by the Navy in their use of the Densitometer. He said the tests should be redone, they never were and it is not known if the errors would have made a difference anyways. Another member, Dr. Thornton Page said that he thought the film showed a flock of seagulls. His only argument was that they look like “seagulls he had seen where he lives”. He and other members ignored the other evidence of the case, such as Newhouse’s testimony of seeing the objects closer and in much more detail before he got the film out, as well the two in-depth analysis run on the film. They offered no acceptable rebuttal evidence to the official Blue Book conclusion and even the famous skeptic Dr. Condon did not agree with the panel’s final explanation, which judging by their lack of counter evidence to the facts of the case it seems that they wanted to pretty much attribute the sighting to a flock of supersonic, glowing seagulls! Here are some further reasons given by the Panel to why they felt it was birds, this of course in addition to them saying that “they could not accept the conclusions reached by Blue Book and the Navy “: a. A semi-spherical object can readily produce a reflection of sunlight without ‘blinking’ through 60” of arc travel.  b. Although no data was available on the “albedo” of birds or polyethylene balloons in bright sunlight, the apparent motions, sizes and brightnesses of the objects were considered strongly to suggest birds, particularly after the Panel viewed a short film showing high reflectivity of seagulls in bright sunlight.  c. P.I.L. description of the objects sighted as “ circular, bluish-white” in color would be expected in cases of specular reflections of sunlight from convex surfaces where the brilliance of the reflection would obscure other portions of the object. (Chapter 11, Durant report of the Robertson Panel Proceedings)  www.cufon.org... Obviously it appears that the Panel disregarded all evidence and twisted and distorted the facts to fit their purpose, which was debunking. In fact it is widely believed that the reason for the stigma on Ufology is directly related to the Robertson Panel placing a bad tag on UFOs, this has also been stated by some of the members themselves. The following excerpt is an example of how the Robertson Panel disregarded the evidence in reaching their quick decision: The report of Photogrammetric analysis by Dr. Robert M.L. Baker, Jr., Douglas Aircraft Corporation (which included a study of the 1950 Montana film) examined the possibility of seagulls. He states: "The motion of the objects is not exactly what one would expect from a flock of soaring birds (not the slightest indication of a decrease in brightness due to periodic turning with the wind or flapping)." Dr. Baker reports that no definite conclusion could be reached, but "the evidence remains rather contradictory and no single hypothesis of a natural phenomenon yet suggested seems to completely account for the UFO involved." www.ufologie.net... Now the Condon Report, which devoted nine pages to this sighting, stated that to come to the conclusion that Menzel did about the film being of “seagulls because it was such poor quality is erroneous.” Yea, I would say so myself! The report also stated that the objects are “a light source rather then a reflected light” (Condon Report, P.423) and that no known bird could be responsible for the ‘glow’ of the objects. Also the speeds at which the objects were moving is supersonic, thus ruling out a bird, unless of course we are talking about “Rodan”! So it appears that the Robertson Panel was the only entity to come to the “bird conclusion”, regardless the contrary evidence. One more point I want to make is that if the film was simply birds and the Robertson Panel stated that the public should be made aware of all research and evidence then why did this happen: In April 1954, the Cleveland Press, a Scripps-Howard paper, was asking authorities at ATIC for permission to see the Tremonton, Utah film, because there were other numerous consecutive sightings by US Marines that created UFO interest in the press again at this time. The Pentagon dragged its feet, but finally agreed to let a journalist see it at Dayton. By the time the reporter was ready to make the trip, ATIC told him that their only copy had just burned up. No worry, said ATIC, as there was a master copy at the Pentagon. When the reporter spoke with an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon, he was told, "we have no copy here, but we believe there is one at Dayton." The reporter gave up. The Press ran a January 6 headline, "Brass Curtain Hides Flying Saucers." www.ufologie.net... The head of Project Blue Book, Captain Edward J. Ruppelt quit after this event for reasons I think could be considered Ruppelt’s fatigue with the government sidestepping of the public. The departure of Ruppelt from Blue Book was the main transition from the actual pursuit of truth from the USAF to a full scale cover-up in many others and my opinion.  More Information Robertson Panel Report Condon Report

3. My Conclusions The shear amount of professional government analysis of the evidence in this case makes the Tremonton sighting one of the most analyzed cases in Ufology. Not only was the witness in this case incredibly credible but actually managed to take film of the sighting. Judging from the lack of any decent alternate explanation from the top three cases of the previous decade (which did not have any film or pictures) it is obvious why this case was taken to a much higher level of review since there was actual footage involved and not just witness testimony and radar contacts. Because of the footage it was not so easy to sweep this under the rug and attach a “psychological, misidentification, or astronomical” explanation to this case, it demanded answers and detailed research to find those answers. Every single mundane explanation that was put forth was dismissed by the evidence but yet after review the Robertson Panel still managed to call this a sighting nothing but a flock of birds, which in my opinion was simply a quick and mundane tag to place on this case to squash it quickly. Because of the large amount of documented analysis of the footage in this case there is a lot of documentation available for research. If one simply reads what I have laid out in this thread there is no way the official explanation is valid. The evidence speaks for itself in this one, but yet many still choose to believe the official government story because it is ‘official’.  In conclusion, my opinion of this film is footage of a true UFO, or unidentified flying object. I further believe that what Delbert Newhouse filmed was spacecraft controlled by intelligent beings from another planet. I have came to this conclusion by simply following the USAF and Navy’s analysis. The official explanation by the Robertson Panel is invalid for many reasons in my opinion, the main one being that the entire purpose of the panel was to debunk all of the top Blue Book cases, they had no interest in analyzing the cases, even there own members and Blue Book personal said that. When you spend less than 12 hours total and look over only 23 out of 2,300 plus top cases and come to the conclusion they did, in the face of all evidence, one simply can not take their conclusion seriously. Is it possible that the objects remained unidentified do to the primitive analysis of the early 1950’s? Sure, but keep in mind that the mathematical calculations of velocity, luminosity, and acceleration was some of the strongest evidence in this case and math is still the same today as it was then. Is there still a possibility that modern film analysis methods could prove one way or another? Probably so, but unfortunately the original film is under lock and key at the Pentagon, so this is not possible. It is the cases like this one that truly make Ufology and that need to be presented to as many people as possible so that people can see this is a serious issue with heavy and legitimate documentation and research. I am only presenting this case and offering my opinion, the final decision is up to you the reader, as it always is.  Special thanks to ATS member AshleyD  for imaging help. Sources, Related Threads, and My Related Threads Sources nicap.org  bluebookarchive.org  ufologie.net  ufocasebook.com  unconventionalindividualist.wordpress.com  cufon.org  ncas.org