Salute to Brian, whereever he is now.
From: Brian Zeiler <bdzeiler@students.wisc.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.alien.visitors,alt.paranet.ufo,sci.skeptic
Subject: Baker on Montana UFO film
Date: Sun, 23 Jun 1996 22:13:44 -0700
Organization: University of Wisconsin
---------------------------------------------------------------
Journal of Astronautical Sciences,
Vol. XV, No. 1, pp. 31-36 Jan-Feb, 1968.
Observational Evidence of
Anomalistic Phenomena [1]
Robert M. L. Baker, Jr. [2]
[1] Manuscript submitted November, 1967. Paper was presented at
an AAS Seminar at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena. A
manuscript on the same subject was originally submitted in 1962.
The complete revision of this earlier manuscript, after
receiving three favorable reviews, was accepted.
[2] The Senior Scientist of System Sciences Corporation, A
subdivision of Computer Sciences Corporation, 650 N, Sepulveda
Blvd, El Segundo, Calif. 90245, and the Department of
Engineering, UCLA.
ABSTRACT -- A summary of the data obtained from a series of
analyses and experiments, which were initially carried out by
the author under the auspices of Douglas Aircraft Company and
based upon movie film containing anomalistic data, originally
provided by the United States Air Force, is presented. It is
concluded that, on the basis of the photographic evidence, the
images cannot be explained by any presently known natural
phenomena. On the other hand, the quality of the images is
insufficient to determine the nature of the anomalistic
phenomena recorded on the movie film.
INTRODUCTION
Two anomalistic unidentified flying objects (UFO's) were
sighted and later photographed at about 11:30 a.m. Mountain
Standard Time on August 15, 1950, by Nicholas Mariana at Great
Falls, Montana. Mr. Mariana owned and operated a radio station
in Missoula, Montana, and was the owner of the Great Falls
baseball team.
All of the soft-data (eye witness reports of Mr. Mariana and
his secretary) indicated that the objects were silvery in
apearance with a notch or band at one point on their periphery
and could be seen to rotate in unison, however, and then " ...
with a swishing sound, floated away to the left (SW) .... " The
hard data from the film showed inarticulate bright white dots.
Figure 1 shows the manner in which the diameter of the bright
dots decreased with time. The objects passed behind a water
tower and are exhibited in Fig. 2, along with the associated
frame number (the frames below 65 exhibited no foreground).
According Mariana, 35 of the earlier frames, allegedly lost by
the Air Force, showed a larger image, complete with a "rotating
notch." Figure 2 was constructed from iconolog measurements (a
film viewer with moveable cross hairs and a digitalized
coordinate output) using the foreground reference points marked
(3), (5), and (6). This figure is drawn like a panorama on the
assumption that the photographer kept his stance without moving
appreciably (which was reported by him and was well borne out by
the consistence of his perspective). These initial measurements
were made by the author at Douglas Aircraft Company in
1955-1956.
ANALYSIS
The "Montana" film contains six independent data (as functions
of time) on about 225 frames (frames 65 to 290), which describe
the UFO images, i.e., the two degrees of freedom of each dot (as
depicted on two-dimensional film after the foreground appears on
frame 65) and the apparent diameter of the developed image of
each on all 290 frames (no ellipicity could be seen except for
occasional image smear due to uneven panning).
In the analysis, it was convenient to treat the UFO's as a
system. The four degrees of freedom chosen for this system were
the azimuth and altitude of the midpoint on the line of centers
between the images, their angular seperation and their
inclination to the horizon. The inclination to the horizon was
found to be very small, the objects appearing to move almost in
a plane parallel to the ground. There is a slight decrease in
the angle of inclination as the objects regress, but its small
value is almost masked by random errors inherent in the
measurements. Figure 3a presents a plot of the angular altitude,
h, and the azimuth, A, of the midpoint of the line of centers
after frame 65 (i.e., after a measureable foreground appears),
and Fig. 3b presents the seperation distance ratio
theta(0)/theta as a function of time, where theta(0) is the
initial angular seperation (frame 1) and theta is the angular
seperation at any given time.
In both of these plots some frames were not measured, e.g.,
due to obscuration of the images during water-tower passage, or
were missing (there were frames missing between frame numbers
177 to 180 on the 35 mm print that was measured for seperation
distance, but these were accounted for in the time scale using
the 16 mm original as a basis). About 225 frames after the
foreground (ventilator duct) appears on the film (i.e., after
the 290th frame), the objects can no longer be clearly
identified and measurements become uncertain.
In Figs. 3a and 3b the dotted lines represent what would be
the locus of the data points if the objects remained the same
linear distance apart and moved linearly in a horizontal plane.
The headings, delta, of 169 degrees to 177 degrees are
exhibited. All the data seems to be consistent with the
foregoing assumptions and with a heading of 171 degrees. Of
course, one cannot absolutely rule out some other curvilinear
motion of the objects. However, any such motion would
necessitate the coincidence of azimuth, altitude, and
seperation, all varying proportionally in some very peculiar
fashion to a tolerance of 1%. Figure 4 is a map of Great Falls,
Montana, and includes overlays of the UFO system's motion at
various hypothetical distances. (No absolute determination of
distance can be made on the basis of the angular data presented
by the film). Figure 4 also shows where Mariana and his
secretary first viewed the "hovering and rotating" UFO's near an
Anaconda smoke stack.
After over a decade of speculation and hypothesis checks, all
natural phenomena (e.g., birds, balloons, insects, meteors,
mirages, etc.) have been ruled out, except airplane reflections,
on the basis of winds (which the weather bureau reported as
blowing from the opposite direction); the lack of an observable
trail (which would have betrayed a bifurcated meteor); and
brightness, angular speed, and steady motion, which could not be
reconciled with the supposition that they were birds or insects.
These same facts, together with the weather bureau report [1]
and the Sun angle, also seemed to rule out optical lens flare,
atmospheric mirages, or cloud reflections. From analysis of
speed and geometry, which included a knowledge of the Sun's
azimuth at the time of the photography (as confirmed by the
shadows on the film) the images could have been (although not
without some stretch of the imagination) specular Sun reflection
from airplane fuselages.
This explanation seemed attractive since it was rumored
(although not verified [2]) that two jet airplanes (F-94's) were
landing at Malstrom Air Force Base at the approximate time of
the sighting. This rumor was reinforced by a presentation by E.
J. Ruppelt to a panel of experts in January, 1953 (the panel's
membership was not revealed, but may have been called the
"Robertson Panel" [4]). Ruppelt [5] indicates "the intelligence
officer at Great Falls had dug through huge stacks of files and
found that only two airplanes, two F-94's, were near the city
(Great Falls) during the sighting and that they had landed about
two minutes afterwards ... first we studied the flight paths of
the two F-94's. We knew the landing patters that was being used
on the day of the sighting and we knew when the two F-94's
landed. The two jets just weren't anywhere close to where the
two UFOs had been." Figure 4 bears this conclusion out since the
objects were in the opposite direction of Malstrom Air Force
Base and headed away from the air field. The panel, however, did
not consider this positive proof for eliminating the jet-plane
hypothesis.
EXPERIMENT
Using a camera similar to Mariana's (Revere turret type with
a 3" focal lenght telescope lens), a series of photographic
experiments were carried out by the author on an array of
objects (see Figure 6-22 on page 321 of reference [3]) at
various distances and Sun angles and on jet plane reflections.
The results of these experiments, however, made the hypothesis
of airplane reflections quite strained.
The long persistence of the images would have required the
airplanes to have moved on a unique parabolic path with Mariana
at the focus. Unfortunately, these hypothetical parabolic paths
would be incompatible with the 171 degrees heading defined by
the data. In addition, the apparent size of the images
(admittedly enhanced by flaring, halation, adjacency effects,
etc.) is also not compatible with the photographic experiments,
since planes close enough to give rise to the images shown on
the film clip would also exhibit some airplane structure as
shown in Figure 6-24, page 323 of reference [3] in which the
airplane images are of a size and brightness comparable to that
of the unknowns. This figure is a blow-up of a 16 mm frame from
a camera of the same type as Mariana's, with the same stop
setting and 3" telephoto lens.
During the experimental filming, relative Sun angle, weather,
etc., were the same as that reported by Mariana and verified by
the Montana itself, except that the jets were on a different
heading -- not 171 degrees -- in order to obtain optimal Sun
reflections. The jet planes shown in the figure were at a
distance of 2.5 miles and their structure exhibited angular
dimensions of about 4 by 1 milliradians, whereas their
elliptical, Sun reflection flare image exhibited angular
dimensions of about 6 by 1.4 milliradians.
Upon close inspection, the flare included a roughly circular
bright nucleus and a comet-like "tail" of lesser brightness
about 4.4 milliradians long. This comet-like Sun flare, which is
_not_ exhibited on the Montana film, is also generally
characteristic of airplane-fuselage Sun reflections having
approximately the same brightness as the Montana film objects.
Even with the larger comet-like flare, the jets photographed
during the photographic experiment are clearly identifiable.
Finally, airplanes at the limiting distance for resolution of
structures (over 6.5 miles), with the 3" telescope lens used,
would have been traveling at speeds in _excess_ of the
capability of the F-94's (above 600 mph [6]) in order to have
been compatible with the angular rates of the images displayed
on the film.
At 6.5 miles a typical 50 foot airplane (such as an F-94)
subtends angles of 1.5 X 0.4 milliradians or 5 1/2 by 1 1/4
minutes of arc. The resolving power of the eye is from one to 3
minutes of arc (the Moon is about 30 minutes of arc in angular
diameter). The actual resolving power of the camera used by
Mariana (with the 3" telephoto lens and set at f/22 is from
2/3rds to one minute of arc even though its theoretical
resolving power (exclusive of aberrations) is on the order of
2/3rds of a minute of arc (0.19 milliradians). Thus,
theoretically, and as borne out by the author's experiments, the
F-94's would have been identifiable even at 6.5 miles. The (0.8)
(1.51) =3D 1.2 milliradians fuzzy image (as depicted on the film
for UFO #1) would have somewhat obscurred an airplane structure
at this distance; but the structure would still have been
recognizable.
The angular (azimuthal) velocity of the objects was found to
be 0.019, 2 radians/second. Equipped with the knowledge of the
focal length and frame speed (16 frames per second) of Mariana's
camera and the foreground during the filming, the transverse
component of the velocity of the objects can be correlated to
their height above the local terrain (3,312 ft) and distances
from the observer (for the objects when they first appear on the
film). Since only angular distances from one station are
available for measurement, their actual range cannot be
determined. On the other hand, Table I can be constructed on the
basis of a variety of hypothetical ranges.
The measurements of the diameter of the developed images
presented in Fig. 1 are the least accurate of all the data
because of the smallness of the dimension and the fuziness of
the images. The image of any brilliant light source as seen by
either the eye or a camera can appear much larger than the
source itself. This fact had obvious bearing on the analysis of
the film and motivated the photographic experiment conducted by
the author during December, 1955. December, rather than August,
was chosen due to the lower latitude of Los Angeles relative to
Great Falls and because of the unique (smogless) visibility
during the course of the experiment.
The experiment was devised in order to obtain empirical
information on the effect of distance, lens focal length, iris
stop, frame speed, etc., in the photographic images of various
small bright sources of reflected sunlight; some 118
combinations of these variables were examined. The experimental
results appeared to indicate that if the first few frames of the
film show Sun reflections from airplanes, which are optimally
oriented with respect to the Sun (not the 171 degrees heading),
then the planes would have been on the order of one to three
miles distant from the camera. If, however, these first few
frames represent the images of the reflection from airplanes not
quite optimally oriented, then the planes could have been
closer. In either event, their structure would also have been
visible. The images were found to be much brighter than those
that any bird could produce.
The brightness of a constant luminosity source, as it recedes
from view, gives rise to a photographic image whose diameter
varies somewhere between the inverse square root of the range to
the inverse square of the range. (Ordinarily, however, with the
inverse square for images as bright as the Montana objects). The
effects, which account for this uncertainty in image-size vs.
range relationship, involve light scattering in the atmosphere,
optical abberations, flaring at the lens surfaces, diffraction,
turbidity in the film, reflections off the film backing
(halation), and adjacency effects (chemical reactions between
over-exposed and under-exposed areas on the film).
On the basis of Fig. 1, we find a decrease in angular diameter
of the first object of about 62%, and the second about 61%.
Under the 171 degrees heading assumption, the initial distance
is about 78% less than the final distances (at disappearance).
Thus, it would seem that the 171 degrees heading hypothesis is
also in agreement with the film images being the result of a
constant brightness light source receeding from the camera. That
is, the inverse square distance decreases some 61%. because the
relationship of the developed image size to source is not
precise and because it is doubtful that we are dealing with
constantluminosity isotropic radiators, the third confirmation
of the 171 degrees heading must be regarded as considerably less
precise than the confirmations provided by Figs. 3a and 3b.
CONCLUSIONS
Because of the conflict between every hypothesized natural
phenomenon and one or more details of the hard-data,
photographic evidence analyzed (in addition to the uncertainty
of the soft data, reported accounts (or rumors) of jet
aircraft), no clear-cut conclusion as to a natural phenomena can
be made and the anomalistic images, having no real detail,
cannot be analyzed further. These unexplainable images, taken
alone, do not provide data on mass, shape, size, or linear speed
and, like the early single-camera meteor photographs or even
like the early examples of attempts at photography through a
microscope, are merely unresolved blobs and simply indicate the
presence of a phenomena. In these past, historical instances,
supplementary data and equipment improvement was sought after in
a systematic fashion even though there was only conjecture as to
the exact nature of the phenomena. [8]
A number of other films have been viewed by the author, which
purport to be UFO's, and they all seem to exhibit the common
quality of poor image definition. This situation is not
especially surprising since most of them have been taken with
amateur equipment or they were accidentally taken from a great
distance by cine-theodolites that were not "tracking" them. Like
the Montana film, some of these films definitely cannot be
explained on the basis of a natural phenomena (others can be
"explained" if one stretches one's imagination).
REFERENCES AND NOTES
[1] A copy of the local half hourly surface weather observations
for August 15, 1950, was obtained from the Great Falls,
Montana Municipal Airport Station of the Weather Bureau. It
shows that the surface wind increased during the forenoon to
readings between 25 and 28 mph between 9 a.m. and noon, and
that it reached 37 mph at 12:30. The surface wind direction
was constantly from the southwest from 10 a.m. until 4 p.m.
It was clear (visibility 60 miles), the temperature was 77
degrees F at 11:27, and the barometer was at about 30''.0.
[2] In November of 1955, an inquiry by phone was directed to
Colonel Donald M. hamilton, Commanding Officer of Malstrom
Air Force Base. he advised us by letter dated November,
1955, that " ... as far as I can determine, there were no
jet aircraft based here at that time, so that if any were in
the air, they would have been transients."
[3] Baker, Robert M. L., Jr. & Makemson, M. W., An Introduction
to Astrodynamics, Second Edition, (Academic Press, New York,
1967), pp. 319 to 333.
[4] Markowitz, William, letters dated November 10 and December
6, 1967. According to Markowitz the panel consisted of H. P.
Robertson, L. Alvarez, L.v. berkner, S. A. Goudsmit, and T.
W. Page.
[5] Ruppelt, E. J., The Report on Unidentified Flying Objects.
(Doubleday & Company, Inc., Garden City, New York, 1956),
pp. 286 to 288 and p. 292.
[6] The maximum speed (achieved during a dive) of the F-94 is
602 mph, its landing speed is 130 mph, and its stalling
speed is 108 mph.
[7] Mckinley, D. W. R., Meteor Science and Engineering,
(McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York 1961), page 128.
[8] Baker, Robert M. L., Jr., "Future Experiments on Anomalistic
Observational Phenomena," J. Astronaut. Sci. XV, No. 1,
January-February, 1968.
******************************************************
Fig. 1 - Ratio of time varying value to maximum value of the
angular diameters of the images of UFO #1 and UFO #2.
Fig. 2 - Motion of unidentified flying objects relative to
foreground.
Fig. 3a. - Motion of UFO system in altitude and azimuth.
Fig. 3b. - Separation distance of UFO system as function of
time.
Fig. 4 - Map of Great Falls, Montana, including hypothetical
UFO path
Table I. - Hypothetical Range, Heights, and speeds