UPDATED SEP 20, 2015: (ORIGINAL POLAROID PHOTO RECEIVED)
UPDATED SEP 21, 2015: (AUDIO CLIP OF 1ST INTERVIEW WITH WITNESS ADDED)
UPDATED Oct 9, 2015: (CONTROL PHOTO TAKEN)
Location of Sighting: Argenta, Montana
Date of Sighting: September 13, 2015
Time of Sighting: 3 PM MDT
Listen to Clip of 1st Interview With Witness (YouTube):
(Note: Audio is “Choppy” in Spots Because Several Personal Names Were Removed)
Description: The witness was driving on Highway 278 in Southwestern Montana and saw a large object hovering over the mountains. The witness stopped his car, got out, retrieved his polaroid camera and snapped a photo. At that point the object abruptly streaked away (in 2 seconds). Two others witnessed the sighting. (A couple from Texas also stopped.) They didn’t hang around for long and were really “freaked out” by what they saw. The primary witness (reporting the sighting) said that both of the other witnesses had cell phones, but did not take photos. The witness stated that when he stopped he felt “electrical energy” in the air and that his hair “stood on end.” He also thought that the object was emitting beams of light. The object had very long wings with an upward protrusion at the end of each wing. The object was visible for about 5 minutes and was hovering. The witness thought that it could have been only 200 feet off of the ground. The object then streaked away towards Badger Pass and was gone in 2 seconds!
More Information Provided by Witness: The witness told me today that has around 6,000 hours of flying experience. He has an instrument and multi-engine rating. He has flown as a bush pilot in Alaska, as a crop duster and has flown for airlines. Regarding the sighting the witness said that at the time that he was retrieving his camera the couple from Texas pulled off the side of the road behind him. After he took the photo he tried to talk to the couple. They were quite frightened and immediately left the scene. He did not get their names or phone numbers. He also DID NOT SEE THEM USING ANY CELLPHONES. He didn’t think that they took any photos.
Note: I know this witness and consider him to be reliable. He is a retired pilot. The probability of a hoax is very low considering that the photo was taken with an old Polaroid camera (model SX-70). The above image was scanned by a print shop and may not be of optimal quality. The witness is sending the original polaroid image. I will scan this image in high resolution color and update the report if the image is of improved quality.
Update – Sep 20, 2015: The original polaroid image has been received. I have scanned (at 300 DPI color) and uploaded the image. The new scan is still not a good quality image, but reveals a little more detail (like cows in the background). This case is not a hoax. I have the original polaroid.
Update – Sep 21, 2015: In response to many comments received I have uploaded an audio clip of my first interview with the witness (YouTube).
Update – Sep 23, 2015: A somewhat similar sighting occurred in Umatilla, Oregon on Sep 20, 2015 at 7 PM PDT. Witnesses noticed a long greyish object hovering in the north sky, approximately 1/4 to 1/2 mile above the hills behind the Columbia River. It was approximately 300 to 600 feet long or maybe even larger at times because it kept changing shape. This case was reported to MUFON and is being investigated by Oregon MUFON. Visit MUFON at http://www.mufon.com. The “shape changing” observed by the witnesses was not observed by the witness in Argenta, but the general size, shape and color seem consistent. This sighting was at night while the Argenta case was during the day.
Update – Oct 9, 2015: The witness took some more Polaroid photos of the area where the UFO was sighted. The photos were taken in the first week of October, 2015. The control photo (see above) was taken from the highway rather than the field because the farmer had flooded the field for irrigation. The original photo was taken from the field. The control photo shows the “white streaking” noted in the original UFO photo. Therefore the streaking is not due to the UFO, but a camera artifact although the “streaking” was much more pronounced in the original photo. Also the witness stated that smoke from forest fires was present in the area when the original photo was taken. A check of weather observations at nearby Dillon, MT (10 miles to the Southeast) showed that visibility was 5 miles due to haze near the time when the photo was taken. No smoke was present in the control photo which is why it is much clearer. The UFO was quite visible despite the restricted visibility due to forest fires. There is nothing to indicate that the UFO was a camera artifact. Also the witness gave the other 2 witnesses (not yet found) his card right after the UFO was sighted. Hopefully the other witnesses may contact him and can provide a description of what they saw.
Update – Oct 16, 2015: The witness pointed out that control photo #2 (see above) taken about 2 miles from the location where the original UFO photo was taken has no “white streaks.” The control photo taken at the same location where the UFO was sighted shows some “white streaking.” The witness thinks that some residual radiation is in the area where the UFO was sighted. I am not sure why the white streaks are not in control photo #2?
Note to Commenters: If you are reporting a sighting, be sure to include the location (city, state, country), date and time of your sighting. Be detailed in your description. You may also use our report form to report your sighting. Comments will only be published if they are in "good taste" and not inflammatory. Also the name that you list in the comment will be posted. Use abbreviations or aliases if you don't want your name listed.
Thank you for posting your report/analysis of this important UFO event. Given that you know the primary witness and that he is a retired pilot, I would consider him to be a very reliable witness. That the Polaroid image is “of poor quality” may simply reflect the close proximity of this object to the camera (“his hair was standing on end”) and the effect of it’s surrounding energy field on the film’s emulsion exposure. I would like to ask this witness and any other witnesses to this important UFO sighting to record a video presentation detailing their experience, and allow us to post that video on your website, the Jesse A. Marcel Library’s website (www.JAML.org), and on the JAML’s YouTube channel. If you have any further communication with this witness, would you please consider asking him/them to do this. I would be very willing to record their video testimony either at the JAML or, if they live in Montana, at a place and time of their choosing. Thanks for this great report!
Thanks for your comments and offer to videotape the witness. I sent you an email message with contact information for the witness.
Thank you for your timely reply. I would love to hear the audio if possible.
Your welcome. As time permits I plan to upload the audio of my interview.
I was hoping you answer a few questions:
1) You state to know the witness. What is the possibility of an interview?
2) Name/ pedigree information/ aviation history of witness?
3) It is difficult determining scale in the photo. Possibility of additional overlay discription / scale compairison?
4) You state multiple times that ” in early years the Polaroid was considered good evidence” and that because a Polaroid was used hoax is unlikely. do you still think that?
The Polaroid SX-70 is well documented as being able to manipulate the photo because of the use of a slower drying gelatin emulsion process.
You web sites mission statement : ” Our goal is bring the truth about UFOs to the public and continue to perform scientific analyses of UFO sightings. ”
How about a bit more “scientific analysis” before we chalk this one up to being part of the greatest discovery in the history mankind
Also you state the pilot witness ” knew the other 2 witnesses (the couple that also stopped) both had phones. How? Did he ask them if they both had phones (a strange question to a total stranger especially if you don’t ask to use the phone)?
Were they both on their phones when they exited their vehicle to view the alleged craft?
Why no camera photo from them? Any leading information of the couple to corroborate the pilots story?
Apparently the couple were talking on their phones as they pulled off the side of the road. The witness did not know the couple. They had Texas plates. He briefly spoke to them and they were quite frightened and left the scene. Yes, it would have been nice if they had taken the photos. I now have the original polaroid in my possession. This case is not a hoax!
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.
What about the other two witnesses (the couple from Texas). Did the retired pilot get their names and addresses. I think I would have in the same situation. Their eyewitness testimony would be helpful here.
He asked for their names, but they were “spooked” and left right away.
This is supposed to be exactly what? A UFO?? Looks more like an inkblot test.The photographer may be the most honest guy in the world, but this image is ridiculous.
Hogwash. As usual, crappy photo, showing nothing. The straight lines however, are a give-away. Odds are this is either a camera malfunction or film malfunction. Absolutely not a “UFO”.
The entire UFO community would do well to start requiring real evidence. Claiming crappy videos, or out of focus photographs as “proof” (of anything) is ridiculous.
Come forward with REAL proof. After all these decades, it’s still absent, which tells any reasonable skeptic that there is no real proof, therefore, the UFO community is woefully misled.
Hey, hey!! Why don’t you look at what the witness said. Photo analysis should include what the witness sees. You belong to the crowd: Don’t bother me with the facts my mind is already made up!
Ok give us the name of the person who witnessed a UFO and that it has now been confirmed to be in fact a UFO.
I keep witness personal information confidential unless witnesses request to be named. This same witness was harassed by government agents a couple of years ago as he discovered an alleged UFO crash site in the 1870’s. (He obtained a diary of an old stage coach station manager.) The site did not reveal anything, but we have strong evidence that the witness was harassed because we have multiple witnesses to this effect. It was a case where the government did not want civilians potentially finding a crash site that they didn’t know about. The agents investigated and didn’t find anything, but they wanted to see for themselves. I and several other researchers collected data at the site and did not find anything. Check this link for information about this case:
Hello Mr. Puckett.
Once again, I’m obliging to the witness who saw this object, seemingly quite large with a structured appearance. Yet once again, the photo leaves at lot to be desired, as it seems overexposed or something. The witness said that the object appeared to be over those mountain which seem to be some distance from the witness, and he states that this object was two hundred feet over those mountains. As I look at the photo, I see the object as it’s ‘pointed out’ on the report, but it looks as though the objects parameters extend completely beyond both sides of the photo’s frame, where the structure seems to ‘repeat’ itself on beyond the edge of the picture.
I put some credence in this encounter because you say that the witness is a retired pilot, and one wants to think that something was seen and photographed, but like I said, he the witness may be an ace pilot (retired), but not an ace photographer! Thanks for the report though!
Yes, the photo is of poor quality, but in early years polaroid photos were considered good evidence because they were difficult to hoax. Of course someone could throw something up in the air, but I doubt if that was the case here.
A polaroid instamatic in 2015?
Yes, the witness is behind times and not computer literate. However, polaroid photos back in the 50’s and 60’s were considered good evidence because they were difficult to hoax. Yes, the photo is of poor quality, but this witness is reliable. I know him and I believe that he saw what he saw.
Yes sir I agree, but since then it’s been shown now that it is very easy to manipulate and fake things with these cameras.
The image of the ‘object’ looks like an oscilloscope trace of a square wave, and also appears to be taken from an aircraft, not at ground level.
“THE IMAGE OF ‘THE OBJECT’ LOOKS LIKE AN OSCILLOSCOPE TRACE OF A SQUARE WAVE, AND ALSO APPEARS TO BE TAKEN FROM AN AIRCRAFT, NOT AT GROUND LEVEL.” To which i concur, on both points. Your welcome.
Or rather, to which I concurred, as I thought the same thing as soon as I saw it, though I was going to say a sawtooth wave with too much H gain and not enough V, but then again it’s been a while since I have had my eyes checked.
Wow a UFO! Now how about some clearer, close-up photos taken on film? Do these exist? Sure, but NASA, SETI and the rest don’t want you to know about them. Just photos? Nah, over 20,000 pages of data from ET given to Swiss B Meier during over 70 years of ET contact. Open The Pleiadian Mission by Randolph Winters, based on Meier’s http://www.theyfly.com. Sci-fi? Here’s the attempt to debunk Meier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z16B3IP1Bbg
Please send out an email if you receive the original polaroid.
Yes, I will be sending out the original assuming that it is better than the scanned copy.