
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
Kevin D. Randle:
One of the strongest cases supporting the existence of UFOs
occurred in August 1950, when Mr. Nick Mariana, then general manager of
the Great Falls "Selectrics" baseball team, accompanied by his
secretary, reported seeing two rotating, disk-shaped objects in the
daytime sky which he was apparently able to capture as small white dots
on 16-mm color movie film. The case was carried in the Condon Report as
unexplained.
The film, taken from the vacant Legion Ball Park in Great
Falls, Montana, on the fifteenth (updated information) of August has
withstood the best efforts of debunkers to discredit it or of skeptics
to explain it. Here is the story:
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.
In 1953, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency organized the
Robertson Panel, which examined the Mariana film along with other
selected cases. And, as before, the "aircraft" solution was adopted.
This time, however, the "possible" was dropped from the file. It was
marked simply "aircraft."
The case, however, was not closed. In 1955, Dr. Robert M. L.
Baker, then employed by the Douglas Aircraft Corporation, conducted his
own detailed analysis of the film. His conclusion was that the images
could not be explained by any presently known natural phenomena. But
Baker went further than just looking at the film. He ran a series of
tests, including his own films of aircraft at varying distances. At
twelve miles, using a camera similar to the one Mariana had, Baker
filmed a DC-3 so that it duplicated the Montana film. Those results,
however, were not completely satisfactory.
Studying the Mariana film, Baker had determined the objects
were two miles from the camera. At that range, the jet interceptors
should have been clearly identifiable as aircraft. As the range
increased, so did the rate of speed, until at ten miles, the objects
had to be moving at 600 miles per hour, and at twelve miles, they were
going faster than jets could fly in 1950. Baker's duplicate needed a
DC-3 at twelve miles, but a DC-3 did not have half the needed speed.
Another problem was the short time that the DC-3 duplicated the objects
on Mariana's film. The plane was only masked by the reflections for a
short time.
The film remained locked in that limbo until the University
of Colorado's UFO Project, headed by Dr. Edward U. Condon, was
organized in 1966. The films were studied again, Baker's files were
examined, Mariana was re-interviewed, and the complete Air Force file
was seen. The Condon investigators added a new problem to the case.
They were not sure whether the film was actually taken on August 5 or
August 15. If it was August 5, the aircraft explanation was unlikely.
Further checking uncovered the fact that the August 15 date was not
possible if Mariana was in the ball park to inspect the field before a
game. (* later research proved this to be false). Newspaper records
showed that there were no home games for the Great Falls team between
August 9 and August 18.
Air Force records indicated that Mariana said he had seen
the jets after the UFOs disappeared. That would tend to fix the date as
August 15, unless he was referring to planes other than the two F-94
fighters.
The principal photoanalyst of this case for the Condon
Committee, University of Arizona astronomer William K. Hartmann, summed
up his report as follows:
"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 base ball park. However, Witness I [Mariana] reported seeing two
planes coming in for a landing behind him immediately following the
filming, thereby accounting for those aircraft."
Analysis of the film showed a variety of things. Possibly
the most important fact came from the Colorado study. Hartmann found
that the objects photographed had a constant elliptical shape. Baker
had thought that the shape had been due to irregular panning by the
photographer, but it was shown that such panning had not occurred.
Evidence of panning was found in one or two frames, but a complete
study of the entire film showed that it was the shape of the objects
that had caused the images. Hard data available on the film did not
provide enough definite information for a firm conclusion to be reached.
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.
Source: Kevin Randle, from Ron
Story's Encyclopedia of UFOs, Ron Story.
|