DOW-UAP-D103, Project Blue Book Photo File Relating to Tremonton Film, Utah, 1952
During its investigation of a July 1952 film of an incident reported near Tremonton, Utah, Project Blue Book examined whether the objects recorded on film might have been “pillow balloons.” Project Blue Book was a U.S. Air Force program active from 1952 to 1969 that investigated the nature and origin of unidentified flying objects (UFOs). In December 1952, investigators contacted General Mills, Inc., the only known manufacturer of pillow balloons at the time, to determine whether a balloon release could account for the incident. The file includes example imagery of pillow balloons supplied by General Mills Research Laboratories. In late December 1952, Project Blue Book personnel, balloon specialists, and representatives from General Mills reviewed the Tremonton footage. The group’s consensus was that the objects closely resembled pillow balloons in flight and behaved consistently with that explanation. One General Mills representative was less convinced, noting that the objects appeared somewhat too bright and seemed to maneuver too rapidly. The reviewers also questioned previous angular-velocity calculations suggesting that the objects moved at a high rate of speed because those calculations depended on the unverified assumption that the camera operator had held the camera still during filming. Subsequent efforts to identify a pillow-balloon release in the Tremonton area were unsuccessful. The file also considered seabirds as a possible explanation, citing similar films showing seabirds as bright points of light under comparable conditions. Later Air Force assessments favored the seabird attribution.
The summary above is sourced from the released file metadata as published to war.gov. The analysis sections below are original to this tracker.
Where this file fits in the PURSUE archive
This file is one of DoD's 257 files in the Trump PURSUE disclosure. Within the DoD agency block it ranks #257 of 257 by Anomalousness Index. Across the entire 450-file archive it ranks #431 of 450.
That places it in the lower-scoring band of the archive (431 of 450 by score), typical of investigative-record style files where the report is paper-based rather than instrumented.
Anomalousness Index: 51/100
Evidentiary weight that this encounter remains unexplained after conventional analysis. Not a probability of extraterrestrial origin - that number is not honestly computable from the released files and this tracker refuses to publish it.
🤖 AI-ASSISTED SCORING · methodology
The six rubric components break down for this file as follows. Each component has a weighted contribution to the final score; the per-component explanation below describes what this file's particular value on that component means in the rubric's framework.
No sensor, camera, or instrument backs this observation - it is testimony, relayed through the Department of War, and scored on the rubric's lowest sensor-quality tier for that reason. That doesn't bear on the witness's credibility (a separate axis); it reflects only that nothing beyond human perception recorded the event.
The witness, U.S. Navy Chief Warrant Officer Delbert C. Newhouse, was a trained photographer whom the Air Force assessed as honest and reliable. That is a high witness-credibility tier, ranked in the rubric below astronaut, trained-aviator, and federal-agent testimony. This axis scores the witness, separately from how the objects were later interpreted.
On corroboration, this file from the Department of War - like every single-tier file in the PURSUE archive - is a single-witness or single-instrument capture per the released metadata. The rubric doesn't infer multi-witness confirmation the summaries don't actually establish; this score reflects the honest limit of what was released, not a judgment about the underlying event.
The released file contains no speed, acceleration, or vector data precise enough to score on the kinematic axis - and that's true archive-wide, not specific to this file. The rubric declines to infer kinematic anomaly from a witness's narrative estimate of how fast something moved; that itself says something about what PURSUE actually released: descriptive accounts, not flight-path telemetry.
Every file in the archive, including this one, scores this tier: a conventional explanation was considered in the released record but isn't treated as dispositive. That's a pattern in how war.gov's own summaries are written - they consistently hedge against strong conclusions either way - and the rubric takes that hedging at face value rather than resolving it for them.
The released record reports an official conclusion that leans conventional, alongside the statement that the available material cannot conclusively resolve the case. That is neither an open file nor a closed one, so the rubric scores it on its partial-resolution tier.
Bottom line on the score: the Anomalousness Index of 51/100 reflects evidentiary weight that this specific file's encounter remains structurally unexplained by the rubric's six axes - it is not a claim that the underlying event involved anything non-conventional, and it is not comparable across rubrics that use different weights. For the full per-axis weights and the rubric JSON, see /methodology.
Related files in DoD
Other PURSUE files in the same category, ranked by Anomalousness Index.
DOW-UAP-PR024, Unresolved UAP Report, Middle East, 2023
DOW-UAP-PR072, "ADMINISTRATIVE REVISION: IIR 1777 J0032 22 Kazakhstan - UAP in the vicinit…
DOW-UAP-PR106, Unresolved UAP Report, Eastern United States, 2020
DOW-UAP-PR108, Unresolved UAP Report, Western United States, 2020
DOW-UAP-PR109, Unresolved UAP Report, Eastern United States, 2015
DOW-UAP-PR110, Unresolved UAP Report, Eastern United States, 2020
Verification
SHA-256:
This hash is the SHA-256 of the file body war.gov served on the verification date above. War.gov has re-processed some file bodies since first release (re-compression + OCR, no content removed - see /changes); we re-verify and record the change rather than silently serve a stale hash. How to check this yourself →