I submit that the key to the solution of all the dilemmas in the Newhouse/Tremonton, Utah case resides in the official Baker analysis and the use of known clues supplied in the camera data (also known to AF and Navy analysts) and what is known about the human eye. MAXW-PBB11-439 tells us that it doesn't matter what some claim Newhouse said he saw four years later. The film itself tells us what he saw in 1952.
I don't know how many people on this list have actually conducted UFO investigations. I do know, however, that the team we use has the expertise to study and analyze cases. But having conducted investigations is a valuable asset. When a witness describes an object he/she many times unknowingly exaggerates size estimates. This is human nature and witnesses simply are unaware what they can see very well at even great distances. In my investigations I always asked, "was the Moon visible?". I would then ask them to give me their estimation of how big the actual object was in comparison. Finally, I would ask them to give me their estimation of how big the full Moon was at arm's length. If the witness is a good one, and gives pretty accurate information, they will provide valuable insight as to relative size even if they tell you the object was about a fourth of the size of the Moon at arm's length, and that the Moon is about the size of a golf ball! This is very telling because the Moon is more like an aspirin tablet at arm's length. This doesn't mean the witness lied. It means the witness is seriously trying to give you an accurate description.
I ask our colleagues the next time they view the Moon to take a good look. You will be amazed at what you can see with the unaided eye on this tiny globe. Our ancestors were able to see features and give them names that we have all become familiar with. The Moon being 2160 miles wide it is hard to imagine features, even craters, only a few hundred miles across being discernible. But, even so, human nature being what it is, a trained observer familiar with the night sky would not, for example, say an object came at them at high speed and was 400' feet wide, and it turned out to be the Moon. Complicate that with a half-dozen observers and it gets rather silly that anybody, let alone, say seasoned pilots and navigators would make such a claim. But what the human eye can see is very surprising.
Newhouse claims he saw gunmetal objects, like saucers inverted on each other, at the very outset of the Tremonton event. After he stopped the car and BEFORE he started filming:
"he observed the objects (twelve to fourteen of them) to be directly overhead and milling about. He described them as 'gun metal colored objects shaped like two saucers, one inverted on top of the other'. He estimated that they subtended 'about the same angle as B-29's at 10,000 feet' (about half a degree - i.e., about the angular diameter of the moon). Next, he ran to the trunk of his car, took out his Bell and Howell Automaster loan movie camera equipped with a 3" telephoto lens, loaded it, focused it at infinity and began shooting." About two minutes elapsed getting to that point.
There was more than one analysis of the Utah film and many studies within each one, so we're not accepting one and throwing out others we don't like here. One analysis that I present is pretty well acceptable in scientific circles, and is of the same type used in The Lunascan Project. It involves known facts and does not involve human misperception. It is what the camera can see:
"Microscopic examinations show that the objects are in focus and 1/6th to 1/10 the size of the full moon with the naked eye." (see document below).
The above-mentioned fact is not what Newhouse claimed. This is what the camera saw and what the analysts measured. And this was minutes AFTER the close flyover. Any one of my colleagues is also welcome to view our DVD version of the Utah film and see for oneself how large the images are at times. But these images, this footage, begins several minutes into the sighting. So if objects 1/6th to 1/10th the size of the Moon are known to be on the film, and anybody with good eyesight can see detail under THOSE conditions, what could Newhouse and his wife had seen earlier?
I submit that they saw exactly what they claimed. Even without the initial observation data, the sighting HAD to have been very dramatic. Enough resolution, even at plus two minutes with the angle of the sun different than what we see in the film (almost 180 degrees) for minute detail to be seen. Newhouse never said the objects were 1/6th to 1/10th the size of the full moon, which is VERY large. The camera proves it. This simple fact cannot be ignored. And he stated the objects were about a half-degree wide at the beginning, meaning six to ten times larger than when he started filming the unknown objects.
Other short papers could be written about other aspects that are clearly noted by the analysts, such as how it was determined how well Newhouse handled the camera, how the objects in the film were determined not to be birds of any kind, and how it must have been the Navy who clipped out the best portion of the film (not the Air Force), and how much the film impressed Gen. Samford. But the images, measured scientifically on the film, show angular sizes that agree with what Newhouse reported, that he saw details. He must have.