UFO over O'Hare International Airport??

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby Max » Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:09 am

OK, no problem. See, in the neighborhood I grew up in there was a rule, don't be humorous with people you don't know. If you violated that rule you took a chance that you might be missing some teeth. But now that I know you, and I know you're kidding, I'm perfectly willing to accept a razzing. Carry on.
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm


Postby cartoonsyndicate » Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:13 am

no razzing was intended. just perhaps a shared moment in a visit to the absurd. i don't know that particular neighborhood you refer to but i'm glad you escaped.
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby Max » Sat Jan 06, 2007 12:16 am

""" i don't know that particular neighborhood you refer to but i'm glad you escaped.""

Actually, I like that rule. and the old neighborhood.
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby Serpentime » Sat Jan 06, 2007 7:20 am

Hi everyone,

Thank you for the additional resources and insights. :)


Whatever happened at ORD (Chicago - O’Hare), the incident appears – at the very least – to have generated some conflicting interpretations and contradictory Official statements.


~ Originally, my comments regarding this report would have resembled Max’s first post, but I felt that I would wait for his “expert” response to the Federal Aviation Administration’s “explanation”, before offering my own reaction.


{~And he said it much more eloquently than I could have, too… :)}


Primarily, I wanted to know more about the likelihood of Chicago Approach to have “painted” the (apparent?) “primary” target while it was hovering, at low altitude, above the airport?


Clearly, the FAA has denied that any such radar-tape evidence exists. But my curiosity is fueled by the contradictory version of events that was offered to Jon Hilkevitch regarding the audio archives.


~ If I followed the radar explanations correctly, then the answer to this question would be – maybe?




As for the "Our theory on this is that it was a weather phenomenon" statement, I couldn’t help but wonder if this was nothing more than a convenient “sound-bite”, expediently engineered for the media…

The only question left – at this point – is whether this “conclusion” was offered after researching the WX (and witness accounts) for November 7, 2006, or was simply plucked out of some bureaucratic “group-think” for the benefit of the Press?


Though this is my opinion only, the presence of any WX phenomena capable of generating such dramatic observations – at a MAJOR airport – should have been of great interest to the FAA meteorologist. Yet no actual weather, or wind, data (…besides, ”When the lights shine up into the clouds, sometimes you can see funny things.”) is presented to substantiate the FAA’s “theory”?


~ A ceiling of clouds at 1900 AGL does not necessarily imply (IMO) any unusual condition that could prompt independent multiple reports, or descriptions, like this:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The sighting occurred during daylight, about 4:30 p.m., just before sunset.

All the witnesses said the object was dark gray and well defined in the overcast skies. They said the craft, estimated by different accounts to be 6 feet to 24 feet in diameter, did not display any lights.

Some said it looked like a rotating Frisbee, while others said it did not appear to be spinning. All agreed the object made no noise and it was at a fixed position in the sky, just below the 1,900-foot cloud deck, until shooting off into the clouds.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nor does “ball lightning” appear “dark gray”, nor illuminate itself for any longer than a second, or two.


To my opinion, the only (possible? Never mind the velocity…) “meteorological” candidate for such a sighting would have been a “Lenticular” cloud; but when was the last time that a Lenticular cloud formed under a 1900ft ceiling in Illinois? ~ And without a mountain handy, or a hurricane-force wind blowing, to sculpt out its “saucer” shape?



~ Weather conditions that severe should have restricted operations at O’Hare Airport, yet no record of this restriction (or closing) exists either, nor is it alleged.



Lights at airports are nothing new, either. As Max stated, the direction of airport lighting is tightly controlled and/or regulated for operational and safety purposes.


The idea – itself – that the FAA spokesperson could have believed in this unlikely “theory”, is almost as unsettling as the thought that intelligent FAA and Aviation professionals could have (hypothetically) become so exited over such a “ridiculous” (IMO) mistake, in the first place.



~ In other words:

The FAA’s official spokesperson is presumed to be both accurate and knowledgeable when interpreting the nature of an unknown phenomenon (that the spokesperson did not personally observe) – but that a dozen or so eyewitnesses who actually did see and report the phenomenon are to be regarded as nothing more than hopelessly naïve and whimsical?


Frankly, neither suggestion inspires my confidence. :(




In the end, what impresses me most about the report is this:


1.) The eyewitnesses were trained aviation professionals. Unfamiliar with an aerial phenomenon that they knew should not have been flying in the tightly controlled airspace over O’Hare International airport, these trained professionals duly reported an unknown object that may have posed a threat to airport safety, security, or both. Taken in retrospect, this was exactly what they should have done. Had I, myself, been present at the terminal, my first instinct (I like to think…) would have been identical.


2.) Though some of the individual descriptions varied, the object / incident was positively observed and reported by many eye-witnesses. Regardless of the alleged physical differences (in the object’s appearance and in its flight path), the plurality of the observers (and their seriousness) argues that the incident was a “real” occurrence – irrespective of its nature – and not a “hoax”.


3.) The FAA denied any knowledge of the incident until an FOIA lawsuit was threatened. Then the best “explanation” that they could offer was “Weather phenomenon”… :(


4.) United Airlines denied any knowledge of the event... Even though the FAA now admits that a United supervisor called the Tower, and that United’s employees are testifying that ”they were interviewed by United officials and instructed to write reports and draw pictures of what they observed, and that they were advised by United officials to refrain from speaking about what they saw.”


5.) A Military “Black Project” is all but excluded from reasonable possibility. As Max said, the last place the “Military” would ever be testing an experimental aerial vehicle is directly over the terminal of America’s second (?) busiest airport. I cannot, and need not,
improve on his explanation. :)




Pending any further investigation, these are my thoughts,

Serpentime
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby Hydden » Sat Jan 06, 2007 2:58 pm

Max wrote:...Think about it! A top secret craft being "tested" at the world's second busiest airport with airplanes landing and taking off. Taking chances of a collision or other accident happening with this as yet unrevealed craft that they want to keep secret. Well, yeah, maybe all of those open ranges in the western and southwestern U.S. were busy and O'Hare was the only place available to test that evening! :flgpig: ](*,)


That was actually mentioned on the show as well and it took a caller to bring up that aspect of it.

George: "You know, it makes you wonder if it's our kind of technology - why we don't use it in some of the problem spots that we face all the time."

Caller: "And if you want to keep a low profile, why put it over an area like Chicago, or over an airport where you have to have a transponder to even be in their airspace?"

They were trying to decide if it could've been related to the Tinley Park sighting that happened shortly before this one where it was sighted by multiple people as well.

Apparently, when asked, Sam Maranto, the director of Illinois MUFON, said he was going to keep investigating it to see how much data he could get.

We shall see...

Hydden
Too much popcorn is never enough!
User avatar
Hydden
In Search of Reality
In Search of Reality
 
Posts: 72
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 1:31 pm

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Sat Jan 06, 2007 3:48 pm

amazing, that after all these years, the 'authorities' still rely on Klassic debunkery. keep movin' people, nothin' to see here.

shades of the hillsdale swamp gas.
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby Max » Sat Jan 06, 2007 5:34 pm

Hey Serpentine, good summary.

""~And he said it much more eloquently than I could have, too…} ""

You must be referring to when I said:

""And, the FAA lies a lot."" I have to agree that's pretty eloquent. (lol)


""" my opinion, the only (possible? Never mind the velocity…) “meteorological” candidate for such a sighting would have been a “Lenticular” cloud; but when was the last time that a Lenticular cloud formed under a 1900ft ceiling in Illinois? ~ And without a mountain handy, or a hurricane-force wind blowing, to sculpt out its “saucer” shape?"""

Hey, I see you remember your WX from ground school! That's great! Yeah you have to have a mountain around or something to create vertical currents as well as horizontal ones. Pretty flat, Chicago is. And lenticulars don't occur below low overcast, I don't believe.

""~ If I followed the radar explanations correctly, then the answer to this question would be – maybe?""

I probably wasn't very clear. It seems I've been doing that lately. Right Hidden?

If the Moving Target Indicator (MTI) was on, as usual, a stationary object is eliminated from the display by the radar's computer.

I also thought of an analogy that might be clearer as to the radar waves:

Think of the radar beam as a beam of white light . We know from physics class that those waves travel at a certain frequency with a certain length. Each individual color has waves that travel at different frequencies with different lengths.

If you were to aim that flashlight (radar) at an object you expect to receive waves of the same frequency back to measure the time/distance. But what if you aimed them at a prism? That has the effect of splitting all of those waves into their separate colors/frequencies/lengths. If the radar device is looking for those white light waves it won't find them. They've all scattered into their own patterns. Thus, radar invisibility.

Radar after all is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, just like light, only longer waves than our eyes can see.

As to someone else's comment: """keep movin' people, nothin' to see here. """

If we were to just move on everytime somebody tries to obfuscate something, we'd never learn anything..
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Sat Jan 06, 2007 6:17 pm

As to someone else's comment: """keep movin' people, nothin' to see here. """


the remark was meant to illustrate the attitude of the klass- style debunkers in the FAA. it is certainly not my attitude.

the reference to 'hillsdale swampgas' applies here. for a decent introduction to that case see: http://www.ufologie.net/htm/hillsdale66.htm

this case piqued the interest of congressman jerry ford and ultimately led to the 'condon report.'

i think the chigago sighting has the potential to lead to an investigative panel as well. hopefully with a better outcome.
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby Serpentime » Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:20 am

Hi everyone,

A new interview with the United “Taxi Mechanic” was broadcast on CNN today.

{This was the witness who was taxiing the B-777 to the United Airlines company hangar, and who had first learned about the sighting from pilot chatter on Chicago Ground; 121.9.}


Though I don’t have the video clip available to post, I will state that the witness appeared in “back-light” and did not disclose his real name.

He did, however, repeat the essence of the NUFORC witness account (above) and his job was described as requiring him to taxi airliners for maintenance procedures.



~ According to this witness, he claimed to have worked at Chicago O’Hare for many years, but had never observed anything that resembled the “dark-gray object” he had viewed over Terminal C on November 7.


Asked if the sighting was a product of his imagination, he answered “definitely not.”


Asked about the FAA’s “weather” theory, he scoffed: “Not at all. Not for a minute.”


Presented with a drawing of a solid discoid object, he confirmed the sighting’s appearance as a mechanical form. “Definitely not an airplane as we know it”, he said.


Describing the aftermath, he used the same “punched a hole in the sky” / “poked a hole in the clouds” phraseology.



Giving his opinion, he offered only two possibilities:


1.) Classified Military project

or

2.) Something from another planet.




Though it is my opinion only, the witness appeared extremely confident in his statements, his voice, his overall bearing, and his determination to carefully tell his story.

It was also my impression that the witness took both his (alleged) sighting, and the failure of the authorities to investigate it, with the utmost seriousness.




As for United Airlines, UA apparently informed CNN that “We are aware of what (the employees) said they saw, but this is not something United would investigate”. Additionally, UA recommended that CNN speak – instead – to the FAA about the incident.


{~ So did the Transportation Security Administration, and Chicago Department of Aviation…}


The FAA – in turn – stated that no unknown radar returns had been indicated, but that it didn’t have “the power to investigate” such an allegation, even if it wanted to...



~ Report of an unknown object over a major U.S. airport, and FAA does not have "the power to investigate" it?



Who does, then?


Serpentime
"Life's fantasy... To be locked away, and still to think you're free."

-- Ronnie Dio
User avatar
Serpentime
Valued Contributor
 
Posts: 416
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 6:38 pm
Location: The Tree of Knowledge

Postby ryguy » Sun Jan 07, 2007 4:24 am

One such sighting causes the Feds so much headache and PR nightmare... I wonder what 3, 4, or 5 in one week would cause? How many times, and how often - before the general public would wake up and take notice do you think? What's the cutoff before it becomes a forced "disclosure event?"

The FAA can only ignore the elephant in the room for so long.

-Ry
---
"Only a fool of a scientist would dismiss the evidence and reports in front of him and substitute his own beliefs in their place." - Paul Kurtz

The RU Blog
Top Secret Writers
User avatar
ryguy
1 of the RU3
 
Posts: 4920
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 3:49 am
Location: Another Dimension

Postby Max » Sun Jan 07, 2007 6:06 am

I wish I were more optimistic, but I have seen the FAA at work before. I think it's going to take a long time to reach critical mass unless we have a major incident.

You have to understand, This agency is a master at tap dancing, delaying and obfuscating. A few years ago they had to cancel a new computer upgrade that had been in development for about 10 years! They had spent about 2.5 BILLION dollars and kept appearing before Congress and reassuring the aviation committe that it was almost ready for deployment, "all we need is for you to authorize just a little bit more money for x, y. and z". This went on for years while most insiders, including the controllers, kept telling them the system was garbage, and it would never meet the needs. Finally that proved to be right and it was scrapped. ALL of the money was wasted. They convinced Congress that the update had to go forward or the aviation system of this country would collapse (they were right about that. Congress approved a new appropriation so they went to a different contractor and got a system for about half the cost, with reduced capability. So now in a couple of years they'll have to do it again, which wasn't the original plan. This is all part of the public record for anyone who cares to research it.

They did the same thing with the weather branch (the flight service stations). The "Model One" system was going to be replaced with "Oasis", one with all the bells and whistles. After wasting millions they couldn't make the new system do what it needed to do. This time Congress was really upset. So, they convinced Congress that the best option was to contract out. They said by doing this it would save the taxpayers about a billion dollars over 10 years. They contracted the whole thing to Lockheed-Martin and suddenly over 2000 federal workers lost all their benefits and retirement. When their Union started to investigate, they were unable to get the details of the contract! The FAA is holding on to it as if it was top-secret information when it should be a matter of public record. Enough has come out though that the FAA had to go back and admit that the savings are going to be $300,000 over 10 years. Well, that's only a $700,000 difference!. The critics, however, aren't convinced at all and they say there is proof that there won't be any savings at all and it's going to cost the tax payers MORE money. This is still being played out. The arrogance of this agency has to be seen to be believed. You think something like covering up a few UFO sightings are going to worry them? Not in the least.

As to the statement ""The FAA – in turn – stated that no unknown radar returns had been indicated, but that it didn’t have “the power to investigate” such an allegation, even if it wanted to..""

The FAA is THE rule enforcer for aviation in this country. Any violations of airspace clearly fall in their lap. Therefore, I'm reading that as a tap dance/obfuscation that means: "we've been told not to get involved with this kind of thing so even if we wanted to we couldn't investigate it."". There is no other way of interpreting that when the Flight Standards District Offices of the FAA are chock-full of Inspectors who investigate both airspace and rules infractions aqs well as airline maintenance. They have the power to suspend or revoke all of the licences involved in aviation as well as fine and otherwise sanction. They can even walk in to a situation in airline where there are serious violations and just close them down pending review at a later date. Therefore when they say "we don't have the power to investigate" they are saying we've been told not to.
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby MikeJamieson » Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:03 pm

Just catching up to this story online. Saw the news coverage on tv
(while sick in bed) and two that I remember, coverage by Tucker Carlson
and Keith Olbermann, seemed serious. Looks like a real mystery.
What an odd place for that craft that was described to be hovering.

The coverage didn't take seriously the "weather" explanation. What
was taken seriously was the description of the craft and its behavior.
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

Postby cartoonsyndicate » Sun Jan 07, 2007 7:42 pm

MikeJamieson wrote:Just catching up to this story online. Saw the news coverage on tv
(while sick in bed) and two that I remember, coverage by Tucker Carlson
and Keith Olbermann, seemed serious. Looks like a real mystery.
What an odd place for that craft that was described to be hovering.

The coverage didn't take seriously the "weather" explanation. What
was taken seriously was the description of the craft and its behavior.


mike,

this a big one and we all need to try to keep it from going away. how we do that, i have no idea. make noise? i believe, nah- hope- it was a purposeful attempt to get our attention and, again- hopefully- the first of many showings to come.

also (hopefully) we're not on their menu.

hope (damn, have i overused that word??) you're feeling better! (does this viral crud spread on the internet??? no PM's!!!)

kim
amidst the growing ripples and wiry bamboos, broken in youth like the teeth of a mutant.. Afterburn, ca 1978
User avatar
cartoonsyndicate
Suspended
 
Posts: 851
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 12:10 pm
Location: The Borg

Postby Max » Mon Jan 08, 2007 12:51 am

It's hard to believe that Olberman was being serious about a UFO report!
View my Blog

You can't photoshop logic.
User avatar
Max
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 495
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 9:45 pm

Postby MikeJamieson » Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:38 pm

Kim: you're right, probably need more showings like that (in such an
odd place). Maybe some dramatic followup story could revive the O'Hare
sighting report. What was described about the shape/color and what
it did (and the strange effect of leaving a hole in a cloud) probably points
in only one direction and it isn't covert r and d stuff.

Max: you sure are right about that. Olbermann loves uses the flying saucer
graphics when he's doing a Tom Cruise story. Still, he was serious about the
story, aside from some silly comments re: the puzzling motives of the
"aliens" in visiting an O'Hare gate. I think the description of the type and
speed of ascent of the unconventionally shaped craft suggests nothing
that could be reasonably within reach of development in covert efforts.
Of course I could just be wrong about that and grossly underestimate
the genuis of our black world scientists. But, why test at a place like that?
MikeJamieson
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 564
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 4:53 pm
Location: Ukiah, CA

PreviousNext

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

cron