Balloon Company Representative Doubted Utah Footage
Most reviewers thought the lights looked like balloons. One representative thought they were too bright and moving too fast.
Most reviewers thought the lights looked like balloons. One representative thought they were too bright and moving too fast.
Most reviewers thought the lights in the Utah footage were balloons. One representative thought they were too bright and moving too fast, and the Air Force later favored an explanation involving seabirds.
No. Most reviewers thought the footage fit that explanation, but attempts to find evidence of a balloon release in the area were unsuccessful.
Similar footage had shown seabirds as points of light under similar conditions. In later assessments, the Air Force favored that explanation.
A police officer was driving with his wife on a road near Tremonton, Utah, when she spotted a group of objects in the sky. The officer described them as moving together in a loose formation.
The US Air Force examined the footage to determine whether the objects were balloons. Most reviewers thought their movement fit that explanation. But a representative of a balloon manufacturer saw the objects’ brightness and movement as reasons to doubt it.
In December 1952, Air Force investigators contacted the only balloon manufacturer they knew of at the time. They asked whether a balloon release in the area could explain the footage. Air Force personnel, balloon experts, and company representatives later watched it together.
Most of the group thought the objects resembled the flat balloons in use at the time. Their movement also seemed consistent with that explanation: the group moved together, though it was not in a precise formation.
A representative of the balloon manufacturer thought the objects were too bright and appeared to change direction too quickly. The same footage thus led to two different conclusions: most reviewers thought the objects looked like balloons, while the representative felt their light and movement didn’t fit.
The reviewers also questioned earlier speed calculations. Those calculations rested on an untested assumption: that the camera had remained steady while filming. The footage contains no familiar objects to compare against, so it cannot be used to estimate the objects’ distance, size, or speed.
Attempts to find evidence of a balloon release near Tremonton were unsuccessful, and the footage did not establish what the objects were. Investigators also considered seabirds, since similar footage had shown them as points of light under similar conditions. In later assessments, the Air Force favored that explanation.
In the footage, the lights remain tiny points in the sky. Nothing in it reveals how far away they were—or what they actually were.