3 witness unusual looking ufo over Montana, including a former pilot who provides the picture

a reply to: data5091

I am linking a pic of an actual Polaroid photo in situ. I have a Samsung Galaxy Prevail, and one of the features is a collection of frames. There is a "Polaroid" frame in it, so you can make anything from your photo gallery look like a Polaroid photo. It is inaccurate because the bottom of the frame of an actual Polaroid is quite large, and the digital frame is much thinner. Exactly like the photo in the OP. Also, a Polaroid has a raised frame...it's not one solid "sheet". I can tell by looking that the frame on that is not raised.

Most people know that Polaroids are great as evidence because the photo pops out instantly and is difficult to manipulate because of the nature of the film. I believe this is why it was chosen as the alleged media, to garner a sense of veracity. Also, the fact that this site admin kept repeating, driving home the point that it was a Polaroid. That was the "hook". Saying it is scanned lends validity as well, because it can account for the poor image quality and the flatness of the image. Throw a little intrigue in there--no one who had a cell phone bothered to take a shot of the "UFO", and poof! Lots of attention.

I'm calling this a hoax. I believe that whatever that photo is, it was downloaded, possibly enhanced/altered on someone's mobile device and then a "Polaroid" frame was added to it. The only reason I am so sure about it is that I am familiar with Polaroids and my mother owns three of the cameras to this day; two of them this very model #.

actual Polaroid

a reply to: data5091

look familiar?

another

yet another

I think they built a glider, deployed it, and photographed it in the air. Thoughts?

lighted manmade glider

Here is an update of the ufo image per the owner of this site. Even he admits it does not have a very good image quality to it. And he still is claiming this is not a hoax. In some of the comments below this story and image the site Administrator says the pilot who claims to have seen this ufo "is behind the times and not computer literate, for what its worth. And is adamant this is not a hoax.

a reply to: data5091

And he still is claiming this is not a hoax.

The only answer to that is well he would say that wouldn't he.
I notice he says he received the original picture on the 20th , I look forward to seeing the higher res scan although I'm not sure how he's going to get a better scan than the print shop ....time will tell.

I've resized and cropped the image which now looks to me like it was taken on the ground , there appears to be a mountain range in the distance.

Still not convinced. Perhaps taken inside an Amtrak train or something, feet level still seems to be defying logic in that pic.

One of the major problems here is we've been told the witness "is a pilot" and nothing else. No mention of what he flies, who he flew for, what his credentials are, rank, experience. Stating several times in the article "this is not a hoax" is childish and misguiding people to believe what the article writer wants them to believe.

The person perpetrating the hoax is still very much the article writer, in my mind. UFO reports seem to think they can be considered legit with the most stripped down, uninformative accounts ever. Nothing adds up here, from picture through the text ...

Are we supposed to believe the big vertical glaze is "camera problem" ? You'd think a retired pilot would be a little more resourceful than to carry around a broken camera. Vertical glaze from behind a window and the lines at the top from lighting inside an Amtrak train or something.

Nothing suggests the "pilot" hasn't just been fathomed up as a fictional entity for the article, we have no real info to back up this claim. Maybe the article writer isn't at fault, but even then, that person has allowed themselves to be taken for a fool.

Not to mention the object in question is not something anyone else has ever described. Oh and the whole website itself being pretty much bollocks.

Let's also take a moment to take a look at Highway 278 in the region of the sighting:





Unsurprisingly, it looks completely different to the photo. Firstly, you can actually see mountains. Secondly, you've clearly got ground plants that do not feature in the original photo unless it's been taken considerably up in the air. Such such foolish rubbish this is!!!

I cant speak to what they say was there but after some minor searching I could'nt find another polaroid type photo with those weird lines in it or any artifact on another photo similar to it that could explain it. I also noticed that the short angular part of the line isnt equal on both sides, that would be strange I would think, especially if we are to think thats the front or back of the craft. Maybe its the side? Another thing I noticed in the original is just right of center I see what appears to be a dragonfly, anyone else see that?

originally posted by: TAWonATS
Another thing I noticed in the original is just right of center I see what appears to be a dragonfly, anyone else see that?

What I see is that the "craft" continues as lines on either side, like an oscilloscope signal display. That's what I see.

Being an old fart I can tell you that polaroids absolutely can be manipulated..I used to use my mom's camera in the '70's to make "ghost" pictures.it requires you to basically double expose it by taking a pic, then quickly taking another before the first one finishes. It's crude, and I'm not sure whether all cameras could do it, but the p.o.s. my mom had would do it...
Could have been defective I suppose, but if you moved it really quick while exposing you could make all kinds of neat effects.

The death knell on this one for me though is 1, I repeat 1 crap photo over a 5 minute period of something as fantastic as this was supposed to be?
Only excuse is "I only had one shot left on the cartridge and no spares".
I don't buy that either.
Much as I want to believe, I'm calling horsesh*7.

a reply to: gortex

The only answer to that is well he would say that wouldn't he.
I notice he says he received the original picture on the 20th , I look forward to seeing the higher res scan although I'm not sure how he's going to get a better scan than the print shop ....time will tell.

I've resized and cropped the image which now looks to me like it was taken on the ground , there appears to be a mountain range in the distance.

Thank you for enhancing the photo...how is it that it looked so much like an aerial shot before? It really looked like it was taken from a distant height and the ground below looked striated, like it does when you look out the window of an airplane.

a reply to: VictorBloodworth

Being an old fart I can tell you that polaroids absolutely can be manipulated..I used to use my mom's camera in the '70's to make "ghost" pictures.it requires you to basically double expose it by taking a pic, then quickly taking another before the first one finishes. It's crude, and I'm not sure whether all cameras could do it, but the p.o.s. my mom had would do it...
Could have been defect

I forgot about that! You're right...and there have been a few photographed apparitions that are suspect to this day because of that possibility. I don't think that's what happened here though...it's not "ghostly" looking to me. But something is wrong about it...and I swear I've seen that shape before, just cannot find it in the old cerebral filing system, but it'll come to me eventually.

a reply to: data5091

Here is an update of the ufo image per the owner of this site. Even he admits it does not have a very good image quality to it. And he still is claiming this is not a hoax. In some of the comments below this story and image the site Administrator says the pilot who claims to have seen this ufo "is behind the times and not computer literate, for what its worth. And is adamant this is not a hoax.

I'm still having trouble with the "Polaroid" itself. Even though the updated version is much less over-exposed looking, the frame of that photo does not look like an actual Polaroid. That is what--more than anything else-- continues to cast doubt for me personally. It would probably go a long way toward establishing some kind of credibility if he were to take a photo of the Polaroid itself, lying on a table or something, where we could see the actual photo, frame and all. The problem with scanned images is that they're essentially a photocopy and do not translate texture or raised areas into that copy very well.

I did a pretty thorough search for that image elsewhere on the WWW and came up empty, so that's a good sign. And though I have a healthy dislike for people knocking on witnesses for not magically having a camera whenever a UFO shows up, it is puzzling to me why the other two alleged witnesses did not at least attempt to snap one photo of it, even though it was stated that they both had cell phones.

Are you actually in contact with this admin? If so, could you suggest that he take a photo of the actual Polaroid in good lighting for comparison? He says he has it in his possession in the update.

a reply to: data5091

Also data, I noticed that the original photo, which did not have writing on it and had a different frame, is no longer posted on the site. Did you or anyone else happen to download the entire original shot? It would be good to compare them...I hope I'm not right, but I don't think that's a Polaroid photo.

a reply to: Blue Shift

What I see is that the "craft" continues as lines on either side, like an oscilloscope signal display. That's what I see.

If you look closely, it actually looks like some type of contrails or something. The "lines" do not sit flush with the rest of the object. If it is indeed a craft, perhaps those "lines" are emissions...maybe the "flights" on the wings are actually afterburners? What do you think?

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Here you go SX 70 manipulating the image.

Yes, but that manipulation is not what we're seeing here. That is impressionist art...like decoupage almost...but that is not what we're seeing here. I don't think it's really a Polaroid...I posted why further up the thread. Sorry I'm just now responding; I just saw your post.

a reply to: luciferslight

It is a glitch in the sky. I hope they patched it.

In my experience, they tend to patch themselves.

a reply to: tigertatzen

I did not.

a reply to: data5091

Damn. Maybe gortex did. I really want to see them together...grrrrr

Cleaned up a bit, for what it's worth:

wow, another UFO picture clear as mud......how come selfies are so detailed and sharp, but never UFO pictures?...I smell a conspiracy

a reply to: Blue Shift

Did you happen to download the original, frame and all? Please say yes...they removed the original from the site.