Page 2, letter dated Dec. 2, 1954, to the Chief of the Office of Naval Research, attention of Lt. Cdr. Frank Thomas.
The resolution power of the lens is insufficient to identify objects of such dimensions if in excess of five miles. If the distance is assumed to be five miles and the movement perpendicular to the line of sight, the average velocity would be 653.5 mph; likewise, at $2 \frac{1}{2}$ miles distance the average speed would be 326.75 mph, and at $7 \frac{1}{2}$ miles, 980.25 mph.
F. Generally, the movement of the individual object in flight appears to follow an elliptical or circular pattern within the group.
G. It cannot be determined what the objects are. However, there are a few things which it is believed they are not:
1. Balloons — with the telephoto lens used, weather balloons within five miles distance could have been identified. The speeds calculated for the objects if only $2 \frac{1}{2}$ miles away of 326.75 mph is in excess of any wind blown balloons.
2. Aircraft — within a five mile range an aircraft of 40 foot wing span could be identified clearly. At the time the photographs were taken, there was no group flying by aircraft capable of the assumed speeds, and certainly not capable of such maneuvers at those speeds.
3. Birds — these objects appear to be a light source rather than reflecting light, but should they be only reflecting light no bird is sufficiently reflective to cause the film to react as strongly as it has done.
(This ends the material which, I understand, constitutes the main points of the official Navy analysis by the U. S. Navy Photo Interpretation Center, Washington, D. C.)
I should like to know whether the points listed above are in accordance with the Navy analysis, and also any other information which can be given me in regard to the Tremonton, Utah pictures. I should like to know whether Warrant Officer Newhouse was ever given back the original of this film, whether he received a copy of the Navy analysis, and whether he is permitted to discuss the pictures with the press, or to correspond in regard to them.
2. In 1951, Dr. Urner Liddel, of ONR, was quoted in LOOK Magazine and elsewhere as stating that "There is not a single reliable report (of UFOs or Flying Saucers) which is not attributable to the cosmic balloons." In 1952 and 1953, I was officially informed by the Air Force that this was not correct, though they had carefully matched the course and position of cosmic-ray balloons with UFO sighting reports. In view of this, does the Navy agree with Dr. Liddel's 1951 statement? If so, why is the Navy taking part in the continued investigation of Unidentified Flying Objects.
COPY
COPY
COPY
COPY
NW 91198
DocID:34745775 Page 35