Project Blue Book File on Tremonton Film, Utah, 1952
This is not a title. It is the identifier the file was released under — The file name in the Release 06 bundle and the war.gov listing ("DOW-UAP-D102, PROJECT BLUE BOOK FILE ON TREMONTON FILM, UTAH, 1952"). No title page states a title. The file is a compilation of Air Force, Navy and contractor records about one film, dated 1952 to 1956.
What this is
That in October 1952 Ruppelt's office at ATIC sent the Tremonton film and the Wright Field laboratory analysis to Headquarters USAF, AFOIN-2A2, for the attention of Major Fournet.
What an analysis in the Blue Book file concluded about the brightness of the objects.
That the press had learned of the film, that release was urged under a promise that nothing would be withheld, and what the memo says the Air Force laboratory concluded.
What the memo says the Navy concluded, the astronomers' objection to the Navy's method, and the decision to release the film without comment.
The public line the memo proposed.
That the analysis on PDF pp. 83-97 is a Douglas Aircraft Company report.
That the Douglas analysis, signed by R. M. L. Baker, Jr. and dated 16 May 1956, reached no definite conclusion.
What the Air Force told its press room in June 1956 about the laboratory's conclusion.
That the Air Force told its press room in June 1956 that "all evaluations" had agreed the objects were seagulls.
9 passages read · 156 pages held · the rest is not described
Download the archive from war.gov →What this file shows
One film, two laboratories, and two accounts of what the laboratories found, written three years apart.
October 1952. Project Blue Book sent the film to Air Force headquarters in Washington, with an analysis by the Air Force photo laboratory at Wright Field.
PDF p. 9An analysis in the file found the objects too bright to be birds: brighter than "any natural diffusing type of reflecting object, such as white birds against the sky". It put the brightness down to a flat metallic surface or "a self-luminous source", and ruled out large spherical balloons.
PDF p. 136February 1953. An internal memo summarized both laboratories. The Air Force lab was "reasonably certain that the brightness of the images on the film exceeds that of any bird". The Navy found the objects "Self-luminous or light sources" that "Could not be aircraft or balloons". Two astronomers had objected to the way the Navy measured brightness.
PDF pp. 37, 39The same memo records a decision to release the film "without comment as to what they were and hope that no questions were asked about the Navy report". It proposed telling the press the Air Force was "reasonably sure that they are balloons or gulls" and, if anyone asked for the laboratory reports, that "the reports must be discounted".
PDF pp. 39, 38June 1956. A memo written for the Pentagon press room said the Air Force laboratory had concluded that "a strong possibility existed that the bright spots of light appearing on the film were caused by seagulls", and that "The unanimity of opinion present in all evaluations made in this case leaves little reasonable doubt that the UFOs in the Newhouse film were indeed seagulls".
PDF pp. 126, 127
Written from the passages on this page and nothing else. Every phrase in quotation marks appears word for word in the passage from the page it cites, and the build refuses to publish it otherwise.
9 passages read
“TO AFOIN-2A2 Attn: Major Fournet. FROM ATIC. DATE 15 OCT 1952. Capt Ruppelt/jos. SUBJECT 35mm Film and Analysis. 1. As per your request inclosed herein for your inspection is the 35mm film from Tremonton, Utah, showing unidentified aerial objects. 2. Also inclosed is a photostatic copy of an analysis performed by the Photo Reconnaissance Laboratory, Wright Field.”
That in October 1952 Ruppelt's office at ATIC sent the Tremonton film and the Wright Field laboratory analysis to Headquarters USAF, AFOIN-2A2, for the attention of Major Fournet.
“It is believed to be reasonably certain that the reflection brightness of these objects exceeds that of any natural diffusing type of reflecting object, such as white birds against the sky. Also, there is no known bird that could emit such a radiation as would be required to produce the observed brightness. Either a large metallic surface of nearly flat shape, or a self-luminous source, is thought to be responsible. This statement, and the deduction of a non-spherical shape, combine to rule out large translucent spherical balloons, but not bright aluminum-surfaced aircraft.”
What an analysis in the Blue Book file concluded about the brightness of the objects.
What this page does not support: Which laboratory wrote it. The page is unsigned and does not name its lab. Its wording matches what the February 1953 memorandum (PDF p. 37) attributes to "the Air Force lab analysis", which is the reason to think it is that report - an inference, not something the page says.
“During a trip to Washington, D. C., on 29 Jan 53 Capt Ruppelt was informed that the press had learned about the Tremonton, Utah, movies and that Mr. Al Chop of the Office of Public Information, Department of Defense, Col Teaberg of AFOIN-2, and others believe that the movies should be released in accordance with the promise made this summer to the press that no information on the subject of Unidentified Flying Objects would be withheld. ... 3. The Air Force lab analysis concludes that: a. They are reasonably certain that the brightness of the images on the film exceeds that of any bird. b. The objects are not spherical balloons.”
In the original, "balloons" in 3b is struck through by hand and a marginal "not so!!" is written beside 3c ("The objects could be aircraft"). The hand is not identified.
“The Navy report says the objects are: a. Self-luminous or light sources b. Could not be aircraft or balloons c. No bird is known is reflect enough light to cause the images shown on the film. ... It was brought out by two astronomers who heard a Navy briefing on the analysis of the movies that the method used to measure the brightness of each spot was wrong, therefore, the results of the entire study were wrong. 4. The subject of the release was discussed with Lt Col Johnston and Col McDuffy and it was decided that the movies would be released without comment as to what they were and hope that no questions were asked about the Navy report. This is a ‘calculated’ risk of another big ‘flap’.”
"is reflect" is the document's own typing, kept as written.
“6. If it is deemed advisable to release the movies quickly, state that the Air Force cannot positively identify the objects but they are reasonably sure that they are balloons or gulls consequently no further effort is going to be put into the incident. If the Navy and Air Force reports are requested, state that due to the meager data they used, the reports must be discounted. It would be rather poor policy to state that the Navy had made an error in the beginning of their analysis.”
The public line the memo proposed.
What this page does not support: That this line was used. The memo proposes it and recommends the plan go to AFOIN-2A2 to confer with the Director of Intelligence; this page does not record a decision. THE TEXT LAYER OF THIS PAGE IS WRONG and reads nearly the opposite of the final sentence. Quote only from the page image.
“DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT COMPANY, INC. Analysis of Photographic Material. PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ANALYSIS OF THE ‘UTAH’ FILM TRACKING UFO'S. SANTA MONICA DIVISION.”
visual, rendered at 110 dpi
Handwritten at the foot of the cover: "Rec'd ATIC Aug 56". THAT MATTERS FOR THE READING OF PDF p. 126: the Air Force press memo of 1 June 1956 predates ATIC's receipt of this report, so its writer cannot be assumed to have had it.
“The evidence remains rather contradictory and no single hypothesis of a natural phenomenon yet suggested seems to completely account for the UFO involved. The possibility of multiple hypotheses, i.e. that the Utah UFO's are the result of two simultaneous natural phenomena might possibly yield the answer. However, as in the case of the ‘Montana’ analysis, no definite conclusion could be obtained. R. M. L. Baker, Jr. May 16, 1956”
visual, rendered at 150 dpi
That the Douglas analysis, signed by R. M. L. Baker, Jr. and dated 16 May 1956, reached no definite conclusion.
“1 June 1956. MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR OF INTELLIGENCE. SUBJECT: (Uncld) UFO Movie. ... b. The Newhouse Case - Utah - 1952. The original film was analyzed by an Air Force Photo Reconnaissance Laboratory shortly after the sighting. The conclusion reached was that a strong possibility existed that the bright spots of light appearing on the film were caused by seagulls soaring in thermal air currents. The credibility of the conclusion was undoubtedly supported by the presence of identifiable seagulls in some of the frames.”
What the Air Force told its press room in June 1956 about the laboratory's conclusion.
“A recent analysis of the Newhouse film, made by Air Force photo specialists totally unaware of the previous history of this case, yielded the opinion that the bright spots of light on the film were bird reflections in the strong sunlight. The unanimity of opinion present in all evaluations made in this case leaves little reasonable doubt that the UFOs in the Newhouse film were indeed seagulls. 2. Attached is a copy of this memo to be given to Mr. M. A. Monts in the Air Force Press Room in the Pentagon. JOHN G. ERIKSEN Colonel, USAF Deputy Commander”
That the Air Force told its press room in June 1956 that "all evaluations" had agreed the objects were seagulls.
What this page does not support: That all evaluations agreed. The same file holds the Navy's finding that no bird could reflect enough light (PDF p. 39) and a laboratory finding that the brightness exceeded that of any bird (PDF pp. 37, 136). This page is evidence of what was said, not of what the objects were.
Where no sheet is shown, the quote was still read off the page, rendered from the file we hold. A page image has not been prepared for the web for that page yet.
What this document is used for, page by page
Every claim on this map that rests on this document, and every claim tested against it and deliberately not used — in the order you would meet them reading the file itself. Where the check was written down, our wording is followed by the document’s own sentence, so you can hold the two side by side. 2 of 2 name a page.