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

a polaroid? do they even make those anymore?

I can't even tell what is in the photo at all, nothing for reference or anything.

I have no problem with the polaroid part at all. My dad still has one, doesn't use it anymore, but has one. A lot of towns in MT are very small and I could see this guy having a polaroid in his car while he drives along for pics. One of the things my dad always loved about them is that you have a picture in your hand right after you take it, so plenty of old timers likely still enjoy having this type of "technology" at their fingertips.

Anywho....I will wait for the hi-res scan to come out for judgement.

originally posted by: gortex
I think the story is suspect , who on Earth uses a polaroid camera these days !

Haha, I had to read it twice then I looked to see if this was and old story
When I read Polaroid .

a reply to: wmd_2008

One Polaroid picture for a 5 minute view.

Ever taken a picture with a Polaroid? I'm guessing not. It's not a quick process, especially if the camera is really old. It has to warm up before you can even take the picture, and that would be after holding as steady as possible (Polaroids cannot photograph moving objects very well) for as long as it took to be able to get a halfway decent shot.

It was an expensive camera back in the day...don't knock it. Ansel Adams used that camera. We use Polaroids in paranormal investigations quite often because they cannot be manipulated. It'll be a sad day when they stop making the film for them.

a reply to: data5091

How large would something like that have been? Small enough to fit into a photo...but it appears to be pretty high up, so I'm trying to get an idea of the scale of this thing.

An unidentified static line.

Little green reflections.

I'll be damned if that photo was ever taken on the side of a road. Ground level is all messed up. You've got atmospherics and tree lines & varying terrain that suggest this has been taken through a plane or helicopter window or something.

I'm not one to judge people for taking or not taking photos, but the article claims "two witnesses had mobile phones but did not take pictures" and then states the object hovered for "5 minutes". Whilst some sightings are genuinely overwhelming, or fast - we all know that 5 minutes is plenty of time to take a quick snap with phone, especially if object of focus is doing nothing.

This article had obfuscation written all over it in the picture, let alone before reading the text which only backs up its absurdity. "The witness stopped and quoted very vague cliché descriptions of UFO sightings"... The closing lines are also dumb. The probability of a hoax is not lowered because someone uses a Polaroid camera. As I say the point of obfuscation has already been reached even before these article writers try and back up their clickbait.

Yet again going outside looking for UFOs is far more pro-active than waiting for them to appear on ATS... They are... sorry, something is out there! But in my as-a-witness opinion - this isn't it.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Can't be manipulated look a few posts up check page 1!

real fishy huh! but in Idaho just south there is a huge alien government establishment....with reported underground and alien connection egg.....E. G. G like area 51....one catches the shuttle for a long ride each day......it's west of Idaho falls out towards the craters of the moons a volcano flow

a reply to: markymint

Also how did the pilot witness know the couple both had cell phones as stated in the report? Did he ask them ? A strange question to a complete stranger especially if u don't ask to use it. Were they both on them as they exited their vehicle to view the alleged craft?

It's small details like this that usually begin to unravel a hoaxed report, not saying this is a hoax but if a guy takes a Polaroid photo then reaches out to a administrator of a UFO website claiming what he is claiming he should welcome tight scrunity if true

a reply to: markymint

I'll be damned if that photo was ever taken on the side of a road. Ground level is all messed up. You've got atmospherics and tree lines & varying terrain that suggest this has been taken through a plane or helicopter window or something.

That bothered me too...looked like an aerial shot. I was trying to figure out if that was lines of terrain I was seeing.

I don't want to say it's a fake, but reading back over the article it seems that the fact that it was taken with a Polaroid was something over-mentioned...too much like someone wanting to sell the reader on that particular point. Kind of a "Methinks the lady doth protesteth too much"-ish sort of vibe, if that makes sense.

a reply to: Paddyofurniture

Also how did the pilot witness know the couple both had cell phones as stated in the report? Did he ask them ? A strange question to a complete stranger especially if u don't ask to use it. Were they both on them as they exited their vehicle to view the alleged craft?

It's small details like this that usually begin to unravel a hoaxed report, not saying this is a hoax but if a guy takes a Polaroid photo then reaches out to a administrator of a UFO website claiming what he is claiming he should welcome tight scrunity if true

I think you're spot on, as much as I hate to say it. The cell phone thing was a very odd detail to add in...why even mention it?

a reply to: wmd_2008

a reply to: tigertatzen

Can't be manipulated look a few posts up check page 1!

Semantics. You're reaching; it is not relevant to what we are discussing here. You seem to really struggle with focusing on the actual topic. Let me help you. From your own post:

One feature of SX-70 integral print film[which?] is its ability to be manipulated while developing, and for some days after. Because the emulsion is gelatin-based, and the Mylar covering does not allow water vapor to readily pass, the emulsion stays soft for several days, allowing artists to press and manipulate the emulsion to produce effects somewhat like impressionist paintings

If you actually scroll down the whole page when you're copying and pasting information from Wiki just to argue for the sake of arguing, there are usually accompanying photos. It is also always a good idea to thoroughly read your research material before attempting to pretend to have knowledge of something that you actually do not...just a friendly word of advice.

Do you know what impressionism is? Polaroids were purposely manipulated to imitate it. Miniature impressionist prints. It was sort of like decoupage or Braille engraving, only you did it with a stylus on a wet Polaroid photo. My relatives on the Rez actually made quite a little business of it back in the 70's.

Take posed photos in full regalia, then take a stylus and press down around all the borders and lines in the pic like decoupage, let it cure and you've got this cool little engraving. You could also lift the photo away from the backing and it would distort the whole thing, make it look like a cartoon storyboard. Glue some feathers around it and sell 'em for a buck each. Easy money.

Other than that, they cannot be altered. And that alteration is 100% blatant. This photo is not altered. However, as someone pointed out earlier, it is a scanned image and those can most definitely be manipulated. Hint: the Polaroid was chosen in this article because it cannot be manipulated. That's how they thought they'd sell people on the story. Because it is a well-known fact that Polaroids are typically viewed as being reliable evidence. I'm pretty certain, based on that alone, that it's a hoax.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Here you go SX 70 manipulating the image.



Seems there is a lot you can do a lot with with a polaroid picture.

a reply to: tigertatzen

Lets have a look at the OP image this one.

You have looked at that image I take it, in image the supposed ufo is basically a line do you think that couldn't be done ?

I went to UFOSNW.com and asked the 'administrator' who wrote this report a few questions. ( see my post in the comment section of the OP's website: www.ufosnw.com...

Here is the administrators reply below. It was a timely reply but some/most of the questions I asked didn't get answered or were skirted. He seems to have an audio recorded interview with the witness which I asked him to post. We shall see.

Ufosnw.com administrator reply :

Hi:

I have the witness interview taped. The tape probably won’t reveal anything new other than people can hear it “from the horses mouth.” Obviously polaroid cameras are outdated, but the witness is in his late 60’s and doesn’t even have a computer or cell phone. He had to get someone (a print shop) to scan his photo so it is quite unlikely that he hoaxed it. Of course a computer literate person could have taken a photo with a polaroid, scanned it and then added the UFO. The witness was a light aircraft pilot and did a lot of flying. I don’t know his certification or how many hours that he has. I have met him and trust his judgment.

This is obviously not an object.

Yeah. Five minutes. One Polaroid™. Well that sucks.
Maybe the guy spent the next five minutes waving it around, watching it develop?

I think he should be investigated as much as the story, if not more.

a reply to: wmd_2008

# 517

originally posted by: Blue Shift
This is obviously not an object.

Reminds me of something from Tron. And when I say reminds me, I mean I have a definite recollection of this exact shape.

a reply to: wmd_2008

a reply to: tigertatzen

Lets have a look at the OP image this one.

You have looked at that image I take it, in image the supposed ufo is basically a line do you think that couldn't be done ?

Yeah, pretty sure it's obvious I've looked at the image, since I joined the discussion and have been commenting on it

Perhaps I am not explaining what I'm talking about well enough for you to get what I'm saying...it would be textured. Much like carbon paper--if you press down really hard on the top sheet, the carbon sheet below will actually have an indented copy of what you wrote engraved in it.

Gallery

I don't think that the photo has been manipulated...it doesn't appear to be in relief. However, I think the photo may have been staged to look a certain way...that shape is bugging me because it looks extremely familiar and I can't figure out where I've seen it before. It's allegedly a scanned image of the original, and obviously once it's scanned the image could have been altered too. But the photo itself does not look like it was Polaroid impressionism.

The most untrustworthy person in this equation is the person running the UFO clickbait website. The so called admin that will of course say the right things to back up the crap they post. People who run UFO news websites are akin to politicians. You gamble when you become one of those, so for the love of the human race, don't become one. Admin will tell you X, Y and Z whatever gets you to visit their site. For all we know there isn't an original witness, this has been fathomed up entirely.

Never forget Mulder! You see what they want you to see.