It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The great Falls UFO incident!!!!!!!

page: 1
8

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
Nick Mariana was inspecting the field before a game. With him was his secretary, nineteen-year-old Virginia Raunig. The time was 11:25 A.M., when a bright flash of light caught his eye. Mariana could see two bright, silvery objects, that appeared to be rotating as they flew over Great Falls. He estimated their speed at between 200 and 400 miles per hour. He called to Raunig as he ran to get his 16-mm movie camera, which he normally kept in his car.




Mariana was able to film the two circular UFOs as they passed over a building behind a water tower. In the short film, the objects seem to flash brightly, then move away from the camera. In less than twenty seconds, the UFOs disappeared. Raunig saw the objects as Mariana filmed them, but for only five to ten seconds.





Mariana was understandably excited about the event and called the local newspaper to report it. Such a reaction could be significant. Hoaxers usually wait for their film to be returned before they tell anyone, to be sure that they have the desired image on the film. Processing of Mariana's film took over a week, and it was probably late August or early September before he first saw the results.

During September and October, Mariana showed the film to various civic groups. At one of the meetings, a man suggested that Mariana send the film to the U. S. Air Force for analysis. The man subsequently wrote to Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (the location of the Air Force's Project Blue Book), saying that Mariana would be willing to loan them the film. Debunkers consider it odd that Mariana didn't write the letter himself. He explained later that it just never occurred to him.

In October 1950, the Air Force entered the case. They sent an officer from Malstrom Air Force Base (formerly Great Falls AFB) to interview Mariana and obtain the film. Early analysis of the film proved nothing. Air Force officers said the images were caused by two jet interceptors that were in the area at the time. Sunlight reflecting from the fuselages washed out the other detail, they said, and that was why Mariana hadn't been able to identify them.

The Air Force then returned the film.In 1952, the Air Force UFO project was revitalized, and many of the old cases re-examined. Officers at Wright-Patterson asked Mariana if they could look at the film again, and he complied.The Air Force investigators found records of two F-94 jet fighters that had landed at Malstrom AFB about the time the UFOs were seen - if the correct date was August15. Bright sunlight reflected off the jets at just the right angle might have caused the images, they thought; but there was another problem with that explanation: Mariana claimed that both he and Raunig saw some jets in another part of the sky, just after observing the UFOs.

That should rule out the "aircraft" explanation, provided neither of the witnesses was lying. The Air Force politely labeled the case "possible aircraft," and let it go at that.This time, when the film was returned to Mariana, he became upset. The Air Force, he claimed, had removed the first thirty-odd frames of the film. According to Mariana,". . . those frames showed larger images of the UFOs with a notch or band at one point by which they could be seen to rotate in unison." Mariana demanded that the Air Force return the rest of the movie.

The Air Force denied having removed any of the film. All that Project Blue Book records show is that permission was asked to remove one frame only, because the sprockets were damaged, but otherwise, the movie was said to be intact. Mariana, on the other hand, claimed he had a letter concerning the removal of the thirty frames, which he unfortunately could not produce.


Although a complete, frame-by-frame analysis has not been done, probably because a few of the frames are obscured by the water tower, long sequences of the film have been closely examined. None of the studies produced any data to show the film had been faked. Data indicated, as mentioned earlier, that the objects were disk-shaped and the images on the film are consistent with high-polished metal surfaces on disks. The hard data on the film indicates that the aircraft explanation is not possible, but it does not prove that the objects are spacecraft. It leaves the film depicting unidentified flying objects.

HIGH PASS FILTER

EDGE ENHANCEMENT

Digitized image

Where do you see that these images has wings on it? Was the other fighter jets scrambled to chase these ufo`s?



REFERENCES:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_UFO_Incident
www.nicap.org
www.myufo.com
www.greatfallstribune.com




posted on May, 5 2008 @ 02:34 PM
link   
This is a very interesting case, never explained in a conclusive way.
There are, as always in cases like this one, many different takes on it

Thanks for sharing it: Star & Flag


Claims to fame


In his book “UFOs Explained” (1974), Philip J Klass referred to the Great Falls footage as “the most impressive and famous UFO movie”. In his book “Scientific Ufology” (1999), Kevin D Randle wrote that the Great Falls footage “would become one of the best, and, therefore most controversial pieces of physical evidence available”.

During 2003-2007, Isaac Koi reviewed a sample of 963 UFO and SETI books and noted the frequency with which various UFO cases were discussed. The Great Falls film featured in a list of the top 10 photographic cases (in terms of frequency of discussion). This incident was the fifth most frequently discussed UFO photographic case in the study, with 58 discussions being noted.

Mariana sent his footage to the Air Force. When the footage was returned, Mariana claimed that the best bits had been removed, including frames which “showed larger images of the UFOs with a notch or band at one point by which they could be seen to rotate in unison”. Barry Greenwood has published a review of relevant evidence regarding this allegation (including testimony from Mariana’s lawyer and the managing editor of the Great Falls Tribune that they thought they had seen a longer version than that returned by the Air Force). Greenwood concluded: “In spite of the

Air Force's claims to the contrary, there is strong evidence that the film sequence was clipped after it had been sent to the Air Force in 1950. Witness statements and Air Force documents allude to a longer sequence than currently exists.”

The Great Falls film was one of two motion pictures of UFO sightings considered by the Robertson Panel, organized by the CIA, in January 1953.


The Skeptics


United States Air Force
The United States Air Force included these photographs in Project Blue Book as Case Number 792. Its evaluation of them was: “A/C”, i.e. aircraft.

The CIA’s Robertson Panel
The Robertson Panel, organized by the CIA, considered the Great Falls footage. The Panel members accepted the explanation that the footage showed aircraft.

Klass
In his book “UFOs Explained” (1974), Philip J Klass referred to Project Blue Book’s case file on the Great Falls footage. He stated that the case file “contained convincing evidence that there had indeed been two F-94s in the vicinity at the time of filming”. One landed at the Great Falls Air Force Base at 11:30am and one at 11:33am, several minutes after Mariana had shot his film.

Klass suggests that: it is possible Mariana knew the footage showed sunlight reflections off two jet aircraft, and had intended to use the incident and film “only as a means of getting a little local publicity for himself and the ball team”.
Alternatively, the identity of the two F-94s was obscured by an unusual atmospheric effect.


Condon Report
There are 18 pages of discussion of these photographs in the Condon Report (“Scientific Study of Unidentified Flying Objects”, Edward U Condon (Director) and Daniel S Gillmor (Editor) (1969)).
It is designated as Condon Case Number 47. The main discussion was written by William K Hartmann.
The Condon Report raised doubts about Mariana’s statement that he filmed the footage on 15 August 1950. The Report notes that Mariana had stated that the film was taken at the local stadium, and that his purpose for being there “was to check the direction of the wind in preparation for the afternoon's game”. The Report also notes that Dr. Roy Craig determined by checking Great Falls newspaper records that no home game was scheduled for 15 August, and, in fact, the witness' team played that evening in Twin Falls, Idaho. The Report concludes “The 15 August sighting date is therefore certainly open to question”.

After reviewing the evidence, Hartmann concluded as follows (at page 635):




“The data at hand indicate that while it strains credibility to suppose that these were airplanes, the possibility nonetheless cannot be entirely ruled out.”
“There are several independent arguments against airplane reflections.”
“(1) Short-term variations in image size (correlated with brightness), time scale ca. 1 sec., are typically not more than ± 5%. A priori considerations of aircraft stability and empirical observations by Baker indicate that it
is very unlikely that two aircraft could maintain such constant reflections over not only the 16 sec. and the 20° azimuth arc photographed but also the minimum of 50 sec. visually observed. I have confirmed this by studying aircraft visually in the vicinity of Tucson airports; in at least a dozen cases none has been seen to maintain a constant or unidentifiable reflection as long as 16 sec”.
“(2) Assuming that 15 August was the correct date, Air Force investigators found that there were two F-94 jets in the vicinity and that they landed only minutes after the sighting, which could well have put them in circling path around Malstrom AFB, only three miles ESE of the baseball park. However, Witness I reported seeing two planes coming in for a landing behind him immediately following the filming (3), thereby accounting for those aircraft.”
Hartmann summarized his view as follows (at page 626): “The case remains unexplained. Analysis indicates that the images on the film are difficult to reconcile with aircraft or other known phenomena, although aircraft cannot be entirely ruled out”.





Plate 27, Condon Report
Portion (about 1/3) of a frame (approx. no. 114) of the Great Falls notion picture. At bottom edge of frame are ventilator ducts on a nearby building. (cropped)



REPORT OF SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ON UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECTS CONVENED BY OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC INTELLIGENCE, CIA
January 14 - 18, 1953
(The Durant report of the Robertson Panel proceedings)

Project Blue Book - Relevant page

Tinwiki entry

Interrogation of Nicholas Mariana by Lt. Peter Marquez, Wing Operations and Training Office, Great Falls Air Force Base, Montana.



The Original Story: Captain Edward J. Ruppelt
Interrogation relevant pages on Project Blue Book

Great Falls (Montana) Movie - Kevin Randle

The Montana Film - The Early Analyses

Montana Film - James R Leming (MUJ 223,10)

The Montana Film - An Update From Newly Found Records

Copy of letter to Maj. Donald Keyhoe from Albert M. Chop, Air Force PIO.


On the Question of Tampering with the 1950 Great Falls UFO Film



Movie clip, better quality (Right click and "save target as ...")



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 06:53 PM
link   
Star and Flag Gunsinwar.

I was unfamiliar with this case, thanks for digging it up, these objects kind of remind me the hundreds of orbs seen in Mexico in the 90`s. No explanation then, no explanation now...



posted on May, 5 2008 @ 08:06 PM
link   
It's refreshing to see 16mm film rather than the usual video, it practically eliminates any tampering of the original footage unlike digital material we see today.

Of course what adds spice to this sighting is the adament opinion of the witness and it would seem early viewers of the film that frames are missing.

This always indicates there was something to hide.

So what were these objects alien or terrestrial secret craft.

Starred and flagged.



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by internos
 


This is some fantastic documetation Internos! wow!!! thanks for your great research!





posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by sherpa


Of course what adds spice to this sighting is the adament opinion of the witness and it would seem early viewers of the film that frames are missing.

This always indicates there was something to hide.



I agree sherpa, look at the document Internos produced, the last page and the last paragraph!
Mariana was cool and calm and only wanted to know why the frames was removed........that footage that was removed must have been fantastic!

Thanks for your great input sherpa!



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Here is the F-94 and specs!



Specifications (Lockheed F-94C Starfire)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BASE INFORMATION:

Base Series Designation: Lockheed F-94 Starfire
Classification Type: Interceptor Aircraft
Contractor: Lockheed Aircraft Corporation - USA - View All
Country of Origin: United States
Initial Year of Service: 1950
Crew / Passengers: 2
Production Total: 853* - View Totals Page

*Sometimes an estimate when actual production numbers
are not available. A value of 0 indicative of NA.

DIMENSIONS:

Length: 44.49 ft | 13.56 m
Wingspan/Width: 42.42 ft | 12.93 m
Height: 14.93 ft | 4.55 m
Empty Weight: 12,701 lbs | 5,761 kg
MTOW: 24,200 lbs | 10,977 kg

PERFORMANCE:

Engine(s): 1 x Pratt & Whitney J48-P-5 turbojet engine generating 8,750lbs of thrust. - Compare Stats

Max Speed: 585 mph | 941 km/h | 508 kts
Max Range: 1,199 miles | 1,930 km
Service Ceiling: 51,394 ft | 15,665 m | 9.7 miles
Climb Rate: 7,980 ft/min (2,430 m/min)

ARMAMENT:

External Hardpoints: 2
Armament:
24 x 2.75 inch Mighty Mouse air-to-air rockets underfuselage
24 x 2.75 inch Mighty Mouse air-to-air rockets in wing launchers.




The F-94 (nicknamed "Starfire" in the "C" model only) was developed from the successful twin-seat Lockheed trainer aircraft known as the T-33 Shooting Star, which in itself was based on the single-seat P-80 / F-80 Shooting Star.

The system was designed to overtake the F-80 in terms of performance, but moreso to intercept the new high-level Soviet bombers capable of nuclear attacks on America and her Allies. The F-94 was quickly designed as such, to fill this role until more capable aircraft could be studied and developed.

The F-94 shared many visual similarities with the Shooting Star series including the single powerplant, twin intakes at front, wingtip fuel tanks and low monoplane straight wing assembly designs.

The system was crewed by two personnel and featured a powerful radar, so prized by bomber command in fact, that flights over enemy territory were restricted for fear that the system would fall into enemy hands and be researched.

www.militaryfactory.com...

So the F-94 Starfire was designed as an Interceptor!



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Come on people what do you think of this case!



posted on May, 6 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
I think they're UFO's?


No..the "blinking out" of the objects is very telling for me ..the fact that they just disappear
is fascinating.

Genuine witnesses in this case help too and of course the 16mm film.

A nice breakdown is available here as well:

ufologie.net...



new topics

top topics



 
8

log in

join