UAPRADUAPの研究と情報公開
会員エリア

The Mariana film at Great Falls

·

Case summary

Nicholas Mariana, manager of the Great Falls baseball team, filmed two bright lights above Montana in August 1950. The surviving sequence gives this report a visual record that can be examined independently of his description. It shows two images moving steadily across the sky, fading as they pass the water-tower area. It does not preserve the close view of rotating discs that Mariana later said had been removed.

The investigation turns on two separate questions: what the surviving images can reveal, and whether the aircraft and weather records have been matched to the correct day. The commonly quoted date of 15 August was challenged within the Colorado project’s own investigation. An uncertainty in the date changes the force of an otherwise plausible aircraft identification.

Chronology

August 1950 Mariana and his secretary observe lights; Mariana records approximately sixteen seconds of surviving film.

October 1950 Air Force investigators examine the account and footage.

1952–1953 The military inquiry is reopened and Mariana provides a further statement.

1955–1956 Robert M. L. Baker undertakes a photogrammetric examination using a later film copy.

1967–1968 Colorado project investigators reinterview participants and reassess the film and date.

目撃者

Read the witness record

The observers and the camera

Mariana’s initial account described two bright, apparently disc-shaped objects. His secretary also reported an unusual sighting. They shared the same location, so agreement can support the occurrence of an observation without supplying triangulation. Their visual estimates of distance, dimensions and speed were not established by the camera.

Later interviews did not reproduce every early detail. The Colorado report records that the secretary remembered one light, while some other people disputed having seen the film before it was submitted. Such differences should be weighed by their dates and subjects. A discrepancy about the number remembered years later does not erase the surviving two-image sequence.

What the surviving film resolves

William Hartmann examined the images’ apparent flattening, brightness and motion. He questioned whether their elliptical appearance could securely reveal horizontal discs. Bright point sources can expand on photographic emulsion, while camera movement can elongate them. A disc-like patch in a film enlargement is therefore not a reliable measurement of a vehicle’s outline.

The steady relative motion and persistence of the two bright images made aircraft reflections the principal conventional explanation considered in the published analyses. Hartmann thought that explanation strained but did not rule it out. His comparisons with aircraft seen near Tucson were relevant observations, rather than a controlled reconstruction of the Great Falls viewing and illumination geometry.

The date and the missing-frames allegation

The Colorado inquiry found correspondence allowing either 5 or 15 August. A check of the baseball schedule also challenged the story that Mariana was preparing for a home game on the fifteenth. Aircraft arrivals and winds for 15 August consequently cannot be applied as though the observation date were settled. A contemporary diary or dated original processing record would materially improve the comparison.

Mariana alleged that approximately thirty opening frames showed closer, rotating objects and were missing after Air Force handling. The Colorado investigators did not obtain the letter he recalled as acknowledging their removal. Some recollections supported a longer original film; others did not. The allegation belongs in the custody history, but the absent images cannot be analysed or used as if their described content had survived.

Evidence assessment

The surviving film records two bright sources with a fairly stable relationship. It has more evidential substance than a visual account alone, but it supplies no secure range from which to calculate the objects’ physical size or speed. The unresolved image shapes also leave the reported disc structure unverified.

Aircraft reflections remain a reasonable working explanation. A confident identification would require a defensible observation date and a matching flight and illumination reconstruction. Hartmann’s unexplained classification preserves that outstanding identification problem; it does not demonstrate performance beyond known aircraft. Claims based on the alleged missing frames have a weaker status because the claimed detail is unavailable for inspection.

Questions raised by the evidence

Which August date is supported?

The fifth and fifteenth imply different flight and weather comparisons. Their documentary basis must be evaluated separately.

Are the images resolved objects?

Film response and motion blur can enlarge or elongate a bright source. A measured patch should not be read directly as a disc profile.

Research priorities

Establish the earliest custody sequence

Compare the original submission, processing and return correspondence with dated copies. Record actual frame counts before attributing a loss.

Reconstruct candidate aircraft

Once the date is constrained, test documented flight paths and solar reflection geometry against the surviving sequence, including fading and relative separation.

Source library

Tier 1 Colorado project, Case 47: Great Falls movie film

Hartmann’s original analysis, with Craig’s interviews, date investigation and discussion of Baker’s measurements. The web edition reproduces the commissioned report; its equations should be checked against the printed version before numerical reuse.

Read source

Tier 1 Colorado report photographic plates: Great Falls frame

Plate 27 provides the published frame illustration. A printed frame is not the original motion-picture element and cannot settle alleged missing footage.

Read source