It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Punching a Hole in the Clouds: O’Hare Airport UFO 2006 Revisited

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in


posted on May, 25 2015 @ 03:10 PM
a reply to: mirageman

I just went back and looked a sevral mnutes of the opening segment of the show on the O'Hare incident. I noticed the pic they showed twice of the one you showed. I recall seeing down in the left hand corner of the screen at the time that said "actual photograph". I am wondering if this is the "actual photograph" but due to the fact I can't make the screen big enough on the computer to where I can look for the words "actual photograph" in the lower left bottom. I did try full screen mode but I still couldn't find the words "actual photograph" so that may be the pics I was referring too. I remember how much more detailed they were that what I had seen before of the ufo.
edit on 25pm31pm5091 by data5091 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 25 2015 @ 03:38 PM
a reply to: data5091

Well thanks for trying anyway. I may watch the whole show again.

On a totally different note I see this video is still available. It's an off air discussion about the incident just before the story went out on a CLTV News report and after including an interview with Jon Hilkevitch, the journalist who broke the story, from the Chicago Tribune.

Nothing earth shattering but interesting nonetheless.

posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:01 PM
Thanks for making this thread mate - really is an intriguing case this one.

originally posted by: mirageman

I. It seems not one witness, civilian or employee has ever come forward without wishing to remain anonymous even after more than 8 years. Even those that did have been few and far between. Why is that?

Maybe the CIA turned up at the airport again and instructed everyone that "this never happened" like FAA Official John Callahan claims in this video.

Just to add as a footnote to your thread there was also a similar object reported over O'Hare airport back in 1952 -the UFO was described as a smooth, silver, flat, oval shaped object which 'moved faster than any jet fighter' and was witnessed by three USAF Air Policemen as well as separately located firemen.

June 29, 1952; O'Hare Airport, Chicago, Illinois.

5:45-6:30 p.m. (CDT).

3 USAF air policemen, 83rd Air Base Sq, Air Police Detachment, S/Sgt. Lopez, A/1c Weber, and A/3c Korkowski, saw a bright silver, smooth surfaced, flat oval 30 ft object at about 500 to­1,000 ft height about 2-3 miles away reflecting sunlight surrounded by a blue circle of haze for the first 20-25 mins, hovering, appeared between radio towers for stations WGN and WBBN 7 miles away to the WSW at about 2° elevation and to the left and S of the setting sun, then move very fast to the right and left, and up and down relative to the radio towers, moving almost instantaneously and much faster than any jet fighter. Object rocked on its longitudinal axis, appeared oval when oriented vertically, thin and difficult to see when horizontal.
Object receded at high speed then disappeared like shutting off a light. No trail, no noise. Independently witnessed by Chicago firemen several miles away.



posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:07 PM

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Deniers? LOL The subject is not taboo to me, but I can't believe something unless I see evidence, and unfortunately I don't see it with this case... to me 6 eyewitnesses and nothing more is not enough, sorry.

Maybe 'only' six eyewitnesses, but still a lot of radio chatter about a disc sent to the control tower. intrptr, gave you a decent reason for the the man in the control tower not to see may simply not have been in his line of sight, it might also have only looked from elsewhere that he should have been able to see it, and it might even have gone by then, the nomenclature/anti-nomenclature? used by the guy in the tower though is pretty clear, once he was done with the mild put down with 'Sue' he then says he had other chatter as to something in the airspace I presume, but ultimately he says about himself he would admit nothing about seeing something even if he had, plus he also talked again to somebody a while later at United airlines who had contacted him, and said he had been contacted on the same matter. It's the same trick as Dick Cheney being asked if he was ever briefed on UFO's at the white house, when he said if he had been briefed on UFO'S then it was probably classifed,
"Well, if I had been briefed on it, I'm sure it was probably classified and I couldn't talk about it."

As well as that, there were reports of delays into O'Hare, this is one account I have seen before,

An American Airline cockpit officer who was flying in from Charles de Gaulle International Airport. His plane, scheduled for a 4:55 PM arrival time, was delayed because of the object…
This is from someone who was there to pick up the officer.

" When I saw it from Mannheim, it appeared much paler, but as I moved closer to underneath it, it darkened. My impression is that it was highly reflective, with the upper part mirroring the lighter sky above it."
"I saw a fair number of people, even several on Mannheim, take photos with their cell phones or digital cameras… It was definitely an object, not a lenticular cloud or any other weather phenomenon… This was nothing conventional, and I frankly doubt whether it was something manmade."
So, if that's a true anecdote, it's something seen and there has to be pictures out there somewhere.
Incredibly as it may seem, the FAA statement about lights in the sky could be as near to the truth as those who swear it was a solid object which had a shape, and anyone who has seen a laser display on cloud would understand that, but that would not be a natural event as the FAA said.
So, a lot of factors in play there, and it could also be the evidence you need is not the evidence you want, and that does not mean something very unusual didn't take place.

edit on 25-5-2015 by smurfy because: Text.

posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:10 PM

originally posted by: TeaAndStrumpets

-- aviation professionals' hesitance to discuss or admit to the sighting, even on official channels, even during the event, when safety should have been the primary concern ... i.e., yes the taboo really is that massive

I'd say yes, the taboo 'really is that massive' - at least within aviation circles on the North American continent.

I know you will have seen it before mate but for those who haven't then Ted Roe's technical report into 'under reporting bias' regarding pilot UFO/UAP sightings is well worth a read on a rainy day.

NARCAP receives reports from pilots and aviation professionals via email and other sources. During one week in the summer of 2001 NARCAP received reports from a number of current and former pilots, the majority of whom were commercial airmen. A review of some of the commentary from these pilots who have seen UAP includes the following:

Pilot Commentary:

"We didn't say anything. We figured nobody would believe us."
Charter Pilot

"Upon return to my domicile, JFK, I reported our sighting to the proper authorities. I was shortly visited by two federal investigators who evidently thought I was hallucinating for one of them stated he had seen spaceships while fishing in Great South Bay and was quite obviously trying to prove that I was a loony."
Captain, Pan Am (ret.)

"It must have been Huge! We were all due back at JFK about the same time two days later so I waited in the crew ready room to talk to them. None of them wanted to talk! They were afraid management would take them off of flying status and have them tested for booze and drugs. The story never came out!"
Flight Engineer, TWA (ret.)

"a group of lights in the air appeared at our 12o'clock position. I called departure control and asked them if they had any traffic in that area. When they came back and said NO, what do you see, I said no, just checking. For at that time when a pilot reported seeing a UFO he was in a lot of trouble."
Captain, Ozark Airlines (ret.)

"I, and Flight crew saw something (in broad daylight) that did things that no known aircraft could do without killing any living thing inside. I will only give sketchy details to protect the privacy of the rest of the crew. If you are interested, and all information (is) kept anonymous, contact me. I will not present myself for public ridicule."
Captain, NW (ret.)

Aviation Safety in America: Under-Reporting Bias of Unidentified Aerial Phenomena and Recommended Solutions. Ted Roe


posted on May, 25 2015 @ 04:27 PM
a reply to: karl 12

You are a minefield of information Karl. cheers mate.

1952 was one hell of a year for UFOs and Ufology. In fact I've often thought about a thread on it. But every time I do I decide it's far too much work! In fact it would probably take up a small book.

So back on topic.

Who knows if the CIA turned up at O'Hare? Their fingerprints can be found, if you dust for them, in many UFO cases. Although as yet I haven't heard or seen anything that even hints at their involvement at O'Hare.

posted on May, 25 2015 @ 05:47 PM
a reply to: smurfy

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Thank your for your input, lads / ladies, it's always good to read how others see things differently... I think I'll come back to this thread tomorrow and read the posts I have missed this evening.... see if I change my mind but so far I am still doubtful.
...assuming I believe people did see something.... could that have been a drone perhaps?

posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:13 PM

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: smurfy

a reply to: TeaAndStrumpets

Thank your for your input, lads / ladies, it's always good to read how others see things differently... I think I'll come back to this thread tomorrow and read the posts I have missed this evening.... see if I change my mind but so far I am still doubtful.
...assuming I believe people did see something.... could that have been a drone perhaps?

As a Drone/UAV operator I can say that our hovering times vary from 6-18 mins and then we are out of flight time, landing is the only option after that, there is no "punch up" into the clouds...If you do read anywhere about longer times, it is usually 10 feet off the ground and just a hover..No matter what anyone reads on the interweb, 18 minutes is pushing our battery limit.

posted on May, 25 2015 @ 07:36 PM
a reply to: mirageman

O’Hare Tower: “Tower, this is Dave.”
United Controller: “Hey Dave, this is Sue in the United tower.”
O’Hare Tower: “Hey Sue”
United Controller: “Hey, did you see a flying disc out by C17?”
O’Hare Tower: “Oh, it starts Sue… A flying… you’re seeing flying discs?”

Hi mirageman,

I've noticed that it's really hard to get ahold of the complete control tower recordings. I found a video of a video that showcases Leslie Kean and you can hear some of the recordings starting at 2:06.

Dave doesn't say, “Oh, it starts Sue", he says "Don't start Sue", (with big yuckity yucks all 'round). You can see in Kean's transcript that she heard it that way too. It's Dave's Chicago accent.

UFO Over Chicago O'hare Airport New Flight Tower Audio Released 2011

I know that's not on you, it's just that it has got me to thinking. That whole exchange between Sue and Dave; "Don't start Sue". Start what, Dave? I mean, it kind of sounded like those two had met over the same subject before. I very much want to hear that whole recording. Seriously, after hearing just parts of it Dave rapidly turning the conversation to "are you guy's over 'der drunk, or what?" takes on a pretty sinister overtone.

And how about this part...

United Controller (Sue): “So, someone got a picture of it. So if you guys see it out there…”

You have to listen to the way that she gets on with the guys at the FAA tower. I think that Sue must not have been happy about being called a drunk (again?) because she saw a UFO. So she calls them back. Yeah, it's not just one conversation with Dave, it sounds like Sue is fed up, so she calls them back, gets some other guy on the line, and plays the only good card she's got, “So, someone got a picture of it."

My take on it is that there is some ongoing animosity that has built up there, and Sue knew exactly how carefully to tread.

Thanks again for a very thought provoking UFO thread.

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:03 AM
a reply to: Agartha

The object was meant to be in front of the control tower guy (according to the report), and yet he didn't see it. They may not have sky lights (~rolls eyes~) but they do have big windows. His colleague Sue specifically asked him if he could see it, and he said clearly that he could not.

One of the better UFO Hunters episodes went into detail on this sighting.
They say NARCAP did a study and showed there was a blind spot for the tower, at about the height the UFO was sighted.

a reply to: mirageman

On the other side of the argument is that the evidence is never quite good enough nor convincing enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that UFOs are anything more than anything "unidentified" at best.

I do think there are some exceptional cases where we probably disagree on this point, however this is not one of them. Just not enough.

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:45 AM
It's a good case, which I remember from then. I just started following it again a few weeks ago, because it is somewhat compelling.

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 12:57 AM
a reply to: 111DPKING111

The tower wasn't the original location of the sighting.

The O'hare sighting is one of the most recent and interesting UFO sightings in history. There were a number of witnesses. You're going to have to do better than that.

+1 more 
posted on May, 26 2015 @ 01:33 AM
a reply to: mirageman

Well put MM, there is much that is wrong with this case, the fact the lady I spoke with ("anonymous" in the big ATS thread) several times (on the phone) before flying up to Chicago to shoot the documentary she was supposed to appear on with me for Discovery/Travel apparently DIED over the two weeks between our arranging the interview and my appearance in Chicago is the one that sticks in my craw to this day. I also had a friend in Chicago who physically met with her (at my request) before we planned the shoot up there, he is as blown away by her sudden death as I am.

Just shocking coincidence is all I can fathom if I rule out foul play...

That case was the one that reinforced my interest in the phenom, it's the one I have spent nearly a decade trying to solve to no avail in spite of all the experts and geniuses I've become friends with since...

There is a huge hole in ufology and it evaporated/filled in over terminal C at O'hare on that day.

I interviewed John Hilkevitch before I flew up he appeared in the show I did for Discovery/Travel, he was adamant that the several people he interviewed were utterly truthful and risking their jobs being so. When I landed at O'Hare I spoke with several ramp agents in person since we had to walk to the terminal (I made sure my flight landed at Terminal C)... The agents told me to keep walking to the terminal, they had nothing to say, when I pushed the issue one of them rebuffed my query and appeared to be ready for a physical altercation in the event I decided not to keep moving. If I remember right it was something along the lines of "look man, you're not one of us, we need our jobs so piss off and keep moving to the terminal".

I kept moving...

Once inside the terminal I asked the friendly bar staff about the incident, they instantly turned "less friendly" and denied knowing or even hearing anything about it. Astounding.

When I got to the Swissotel in downtown Chicago the staff there were a mixed bag, many had heard about it but weren't interested in discussing it at all.

I can see that, here's some stranger asking about UFOs at one of the poshest hotels in ChiTown, they likely figured me for a nutjob and blew me off.

The worst was on my way out of town. I really put the heat on a couple United employees about the story, I was told in no uncertain terms that nobody was to speak about it because United was trying to come out of bankruptcy and this kind of publicity was exactly what the company did NOT need. When I asked if their jobs were threatened if they spoke the reply was a dark stare right in my eyes.

Between the FAA lying at first until Hilkevitch got the FOIA release of the tower transcripts, and ultimately the tapes of the air traffic (we have them both here on ATS somewhere), and the fact a taxi pilot got an image of it (which is what we believe the image sent to us anonymously is), and several ramp agents and even civilians out in the parking lots saw it, I just can't write it off...

It's a huge question in my mind and will probably remain one until I die or we discover the truth behind it...

edit on 5-26-2015 by Springer because: Corrected JH's name spelling

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 02:50 AM
"I haven’t seen anything Sue and if I did I wouldn’t admit to it…” - i find it terribly sad that this is the prevailing attitude to the entire UFO subject, especially among those witnesses (atc,pilots etc) whose testimony would be regarded as, at least, the educated opinion of technically-minded people.

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 05:13 AM
a reply to: mirageman

This case is not even the best case and yet people still can't wrap their heads around it.

Majority, not talking about ATS members.

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 05:35 AM

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: mirageman

Thanks for the compelling study. The most interesting thing to me was the "altered" photos presented on television. They were flipped and omit the object. Who provided those for publication on the program?

Why would they show the same photo and omit the object?


I think you have that reversed.

The most likely explanation was that the "object" was added and the photos cropped and flipped to appear to be from a different source.

And why would they do it? For the fun of fooling the public, and since the shots made it on TV as "genuine" I can think of no greater non-monetary payoff.

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 09:42 AM
Best thread I've seen in a while. Welldone

I would like to add that if someone asks the tower if they can see something, do they not naturally check the radar systems as a means of confirmation, as opposed to visual confirmation. They use the tools infront of them as a means of verifying and measuring distances altitude etc etc. I just assume that when asked "can you see it", they would revert to there training as opposed to the natural reaction of "where where".

Also he may be fully aware of procedures in terms of UFO sightings, thus saying he would not admit it even if he saw it. He knew he is being recorded and a transcript would be developed as a result so he may be smart enough not to vocalise what he saw/didn't see, to avoid spooks and disciplinary type meetings Other assumptions such as career path and pier ridicule may be other factors.

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:09 AM
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I was a little double minded in my post, but the picture was meant to illustrate why the Tower couldnt get a direct visual of the object, in response to another post. The audio recording has the tower saying they couldnt see it, and from their vantage point, they thought they should if something was really there. NARCAP showed why that wasnt necessarily true.
edit on 26-5-2015 by 111DPKING111 because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:16 AM
a reply to: mirageman

Think you got a bit confused there.

You''re right, thanks for correcting me. I got misled by the "actual photograph" labels on the faked photos that aired on the TV.

Thats why they do that, to confuse people. In my case It worked.

Sorry for not paying closer attention.
edit on 26-5-2015 by intrptr because: bb code

posted on May, 26 2015 @ 10:30 AM
a reply to: 111DPKING111

One of the better UFO Hunters episodes went into detail on this sighting.
They say NARCAP did a study and showed there was a blind spot for the tower, at about the height the UFO was sighted.

Thanks for reminding me where I heard that. They knew the blindspots. Love to know why they did that.

More recon than "ringing the door bell and running"?

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in