Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:35:26 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Newhouse & U-Pics
To:  A-Team

Good Day All -
I hesitate to bring up anything for fear it will be misunderstood, but
have a couple of thoughts on this. I've spent a lot of time driving in
the southwest and I've spent a lot of time watching bird formations
as they drifted, floated, wheeled, and flown around the sky. I have
not seen a formation in which I could not see the flapping of the
wings, even at extreme distances. I have watched sea gulls and
Canadian geese, dark birds, light birds and big birds and small,
all because of the suggestion that what Newhouse filmed were
birds. I have not seen the birds floating and wheeling in the sky
when I could not see the flapping motion... and I have watched
hawks and eagles as they circle searching for prey and I have
never seen them at a distance I could not identify them and while
they have circled for a long time without flapping their wings, there
was not a formation of them.

In other words, I have studied this problem in the field over a long
period of time and I find that the bird explanation to be weak.

Added to Newhouse's description, which he reinforced in the 1955
movie UFO, and in a personal interview I conducted in the 1970s,
and the explanation is even weaker.

At 04:37 PM 6/10/2009, Martin wrote:

>I'm afraid I agree with Brad about the visuals. As I argued on
>UpDates long ago it's not satisfactory that Newhouse's original
>description to the AF does not support the description of 0.5-deg
>(moon sized) "gunmetal" face-to-face saucers that he gave 3 years
>later. He describes only white objects that seemed wider than they
>were thick, no more detail than that. This is close to what we see
>on the film, very much smaller white ovals. Moreover simple
>quantitative arguments show that such a dramatic dwindling of
>angular size during the initial seconds of film that Newhouse
>claimed to have been removed would not fit the flightpath and
<>>behaviour described by Newhouse.