Skip to content
The UFO LibraryA rack of paperbacks on the UFO record
Back to the rack

The UFO Library: Photograph or film

Mariana UFO Film Incident

1950Great Falls, Montana, USAPhotograph or filmAugust 15, 1950Evidence rated well-documented

Film producer Nick Mariana recorded moving objects over a Montana baseball field in one of the earliest color UFO films, sparking decades of inconclusive investigations.

The Sighting

On August 15, 1950, at 11:25 a.m., Nick Mariana, general manager of the Great Falls Electrics minor-league baseball team, and his nineteen-year-old secretary Virginia Raunig were inspecting the empty Legion Stadium baseball field before a game when a bright flash caught Mariana's attention. He observed two bright, silvery objects rotating and maneuvering in the sky above Great Falls. Estimating their speed at 200 to 400 mph, Mariana ran to his car to retrieve his 16mm color movie camera and successfully filmed the unidentified objects for approximately sixteen seconds—capturing what many researchers consider among the first-ever motion picture footage of a UFO.

Witness Accounts and Investigation

Virginia Raunig independently witnessed the sighting and corroborated Mariana's account. Both observers noted that two F-94 jet fighters appeared over the stadium shortly after the filming ceased, which they assumed might represent a military response to the objects. The footage generated immediate interest from the U.S. Air Force, and Mariana provided copies to Project Blue Book for analysis. The film was examined at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base and subsequently became the subject of multiple, often contradictory investigations.

A significant controversy emerged regarding the film itself: Mariana claimed that the first thirty-five frames—which he asserted showed the objects most clearly as rotating, metallic disks with a distinctive "notch or band" along their edges—had been removed during Air Force examination. Air Force personnel denied removing more than a single damaged frame, creating a credibility dispute that would persist for decades.

Conflicting Official Conclusions

The U.S. Air Force's conclusions shifted repeatedly. Initial investigators concluded the objects were sun reflections from two F-94 jet fighters known to be in the area. However, Edward Ruppelt, an Air Force officer overseeing Project Blue Book, noted inconsistencies with this explanation—the jets were not positioned appropriately to create such reflections, and the objects in the footage appeared too steady to be aircraft reflections. The Air Force later retracted its conclusions, only to re-endorse the jet reflection hypothesis. The Robertson Panel, a classified 1953 CIA-Air Force committee, concluded the objects were reflections of aircraft, but their assessment was based on brief examination rather than detailed analysis.

Independent Analysis and Legacy

William Hartmann, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, conducted a detailed analysis of the Mariana film for the Condon Report in 1969. Hartmann concluded that while aircraft remained the "principal working hypothesis," the available data indicated that "while it strains credibility to suppose that these were airplanes, the possibility nonetheless cannot be entirely ruled out." He noted several independent arguments against the aircraft explanation.

In 1955, Robert M. L. Baker of Douglas Aircraft Company conducted approximately eighteen months of detailed study using advanced film-measuring equipment. Baker's analysis concluded that the objects' apparent velocity exceeded the maximum speed of jets available in 1950, making the jet reflection hypothesis problematic. After careful examination, Baker determined that neither the aircraft nor natural phenomena explanations held merit—the case was, in his assessment, genuinely anomalous.

The film itself remains archived in the U.S. National Archives, and continues to be the subject of analytical debate. The Mariana incident represents a transitional moment in UFO research: it marked the emergence of filmed evidence as a primary artifact for investigation, yet also demonstrated the difficulties inherent in analyzing such footage scientifically. Multiple rigorous, independent investigations reaching contradictory conclusions left the case fundamentally unresolved, making it one of the most substantial photographic UFO incidents of the early post-war era.

Witnesses

Nick Mariana (film producer, baseball team manager), Virginia Raunig (secretary, age 19 at time of sighting), unknown witnesses who later viewed the footage

Evidence

Original 16mm color film footage (~16 seconds), stored at U.S. National Archives; disputed missing 35 initial frames

Filed under

Watch

Video captures flying objects that officials can't explain (2020)

CNN7.6M views, 31K likes

6 UFO GOVERNMENT COVER-UPS | The Proof Is Out There | History

HISTORY3.4M views, 23K likes

Ancient Aliens: TOP 3 DEEP SEA UFO MYSTERIES | History

HISTORY2.0M views, 14K likes

Pentagon declassifies leaked 'UFO' videos (VIDEO 3/3)

ABC News1.9M views, 9K likes

Most Unbelievable UFO Encounters Ever | The Proof Is Out There | History

HISTORY1.4M views, 7K likes

Where this entry came from

ProvenanceAgent indexedUpdated 5mo ago4 sources

Drafted by the archive's AI research agent from the sources below; corrections from readers are reviewed and folded in.

First indexed
01 JUN 26 // 23:18Z
Last updated
01 JUN 26 // 23:18Z
  1. Mariana UFO film, Wikipedia contributors, Wikipedia
  2. Mariana UFO Incident: Great Falls' Visiting Voyagers, Great Falls History Museum, The History Museum
  3. The Great Falls (Montana) UFO Film, NICAP, NICAP
  4. UFO photographs, Wikipedia contributors, Wikipedia

Notes

  1. Mariana UFO film, Wikipedia contributors, Wikipedia
  2. Mariana UFO Incident: Great Falls' Visiting Voyagers, Great Falls History Museum, The History Museum
  3. The Great Falls (Montana) UFO Film, NICAP, NICAP
  4. UFO photographs, Wikipedia contributors, Wikipedia

Also available

Buying through these links supports the library. We may earn a commission.

Early Modern

Illustration, AI-generated. Cover painting is an illustration, not evidence.

Also on this shelf

Related cases, then more from the same era.

From the same era, Early Modern. See the full timeline

Readers' notes

Corrections, memories and arguments from readers.

Spotted a mistake or have something to add? Suggest a correction or join the discussion.

Reader discussion

Sign in to join the discussion — registered readers can comment and vote.

Retrieving marginalia…