It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 5
105
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 27 2015 @ 04:01 AM
link   
The mechanism of the hole being punched in the clouds is very interesting, and having listened to the MUFON video (Hangar one) program really gets one thinking.

They mention energy being needed in the form of heat to evaporate the cloud moisture, but I'm thinking it wasn't heat that did that. In another Hangar one video on under water USO's they speak of rotating and counter rotating fields of force which "digs" itelf a hole like bubble to travel within as the object moves through the water, and they were talking of this about an object that was tracked on RADAR and SONAR as moving just as fast and effortlessly underwater as above water. This sounds like the same mechanism happening as the hole punched cloud at O'Hare.

Whatever is being done is pretty amazing since the cloud cover was reported to be from around 1800 feet all the way to the tops at 10,000 feet and the blue sky showing through at the top of that tunnel.




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:36 AM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

The thought of an almost mile and a half long tunnel through the clouds with bright blue sky at the end of it has been one of the more interesting prospects of this case to me. It must have been a sight to see in its own right.



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Bybyots




In a nutshell, the question that I'm getting at is: Were the United employees trying to force the FAAs hand on this? Maybe this had been going on a lot, and the United folks got tired of being brushed off.


That's certainly the impression I got. "Dave" in the tower was certainly very dismissive about hearing there was a disc over the airport. In fact he seemed almost hostile about being told.

I said somewhere earlier in the thread that it feels like this story was never meant to get out and perhaps there were more sightings before November 2006. Of course if any have been hushed up we may never know about them.

However it seems there were problems with "Ghost Planes" around 6 years earlier in 2000.



Seeing Things Chicago Spooked by ‘Ghost Planes’

Just what are the ghost planes of Chicago?

No one’s quite sure, but they’re spooking pilots and air traffic controllers alike. Images of airplanes that either do no exist or are very far away are popping up on radar that controls traffic at O’Hare International Airport, according to reports.

And on a few occasions, controllers at Terminal Radar Approach Control center in Elgin unnecessarily ordered pilots to make sudden, dangerous moves to avoid the false images. “The ghosting is a complete terror for the air traffic controllers,” Charles Bunting, president of the Elgin local of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, told the Chicago Sun-Times.

‘Descend Immediately,“
The unnecessary orders issued suddenly by the controllers include: “immediate right turn,” “immediate left turn,” and “descend immediately,” according to the newspaper. In addition to planes that aren’t really there, controllers reported seeing airplanes from nearby airports appear much closer to O’Hare than they actually were.

Some blame dated equipment. The Federal Aviation Administration is looking into it, but they offer other possibilities. False radar images can appear when a crane or construction tower is put up, said FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro. “Over the past five weeks there have been 13 unsubstantiated reports, meaning we still need to look into them,” Molinaro said. The FAA normally would expect about eight or nine reports of ghost images during that time, he said............


Full story archived : abc news



The Daily Gazette - May 21, 2000

Had something been building up over previous years?

It still doesn't explain what was over O'Hare that day but perhaps it adds context to the way airport and FAA staff reacted to the whole affair?

I will read the NARCAP report on the incident in full before I try to give some kind of theory (if I can). Although I probably won't have time until the weekend to do so.
edit on 27/5/15 by mirageman because: edits



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 08:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman



"Dave" in the tower was certainly very dismissive about hearing there was a disc over the airport. In fact he seemed almost hostile about being told.

I said somewhere earlier in the thread that it feels like this story was never meant to get out and perhaps there were more sightings before November 2006.


Yep, we are simpatico on that.

I can't imagine that it has nothing to do with the fact that those recordings are so hard to come by, either. I mean, if the employees from these different airlines, like United, had been subjected to endless bull# concerning "security" (a.k.a. security-theatre) for the previous 5 years and every time they tried to comply the FAA tower gave them crap, they were probably getting pretty fed up.

Thanks for bringing this all up again, it's really interesting.

I'll tackle NARCAP too, just so we have something to talk about. Since taking up with PC, I have wondered what the MoD's official recommendations are to pilots that encounter UAPs. I have yet to find anything definitive. But it crossed my mind that NARCAP might have some recommendations. They sure do; a whole list drafted in 2013. Have you seen them?




posted on May, 27 2015 @ 09:02 PM
link   
The detail that proved to me it was real was the hole in the cloud that all outdoor and some indoor witnesses attested to being created by the craft. This is Physical proof...A thing often missing from UFO cases.
It literally drives me mad that this sort of thing is not blasted on the front page of every newspaper and website from Beijing to Boston.
One consolation: I firmly believe that the gatekeepers are losing control of the flow of information ( Thanks in no small part to Mufon and ATS ). ATS has become a reliable repository of UFO / Alien knowledge and a great sounding board and collaboration tool!



posted on May, 27 2015 @ 10:06 PM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousRider


agreed, the hole is the only thing holding the case up, there is some discussion about it at the end of the UFO Hunter episode as well.

Not so sure about the gatekeepers comment, things have been relatively quiet lately.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 01:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Bybyots




In a nutshell, the question that I'm getting at is: Were the United employees trying to force the FAAs hand on this? Maybe this had been going on a lot, and the United folks got tired of being brushed off.


That's certainly the impression I got. "Dave" in the tower was certainly very dismissive about hearing there was a disc over the airport. In fact he seemed almost hostile about being told.

I said somewhere earlier in the thread that it feels like this story was never meant to get out and perhaps there were more sightings before November 2006. Of course if any have been hushed up we may never know about them.

However it seems there were problems with "Ghost Planes" around 6 years earlier in 2000.



Seeing Things Chicago Spooked by ‘Ghost Planes’

Just what are the ghost planes of Chicago?

No one’s quite sure, but they’re spooking pilots and air traffic controllers alike. Images of airplanes that either do no exist or are very far away are popping up on radar that controls traffic at O’Hare International Airport, according to reports.

And on a few occasions, controllers at Terminal Radar Approach Control center in Elgin unnecessarily ordered pilots to make sudden, dangerous moves to avoid the false images. “The ghosting is a complete terror for the air traffic controllers,” Charles Bunting, president of the Elgin local of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, told the Chicago Sun-Times.

‘Descend Immediately,“
The unnecessary orders issued suddenly by the controllers include: “immediate right turn,” “immediate left turn,” and “descend immediately,” according to the newspaper. In addition to planes that aren’t really there, controllers reported seeing airplanes from nearby airports appear much closer to O’Hare than they actually were.

Some blame dated equipment. The Federal Aviation Administration is looking into it, but they offer other possibilities. False radar images can appear when a crane or construction tower is put up, said FAA spokesman Tony Molinaro. “Over the past five weeks there have been 13 unsubstantiated reports, meaning we still need to look into them,” Molinaro said. The FAA normally would expect about eight or nine reports of ghost images during that time, he said............


Full story archived : abc news



The Daily Gazette - May 21, 2000

Had something been building up over previous years?

It still doesn't explain what was over O'Hare that day but perhaps it adds context to the way airport and FAA staff reacted to the whole affair?

I will read the NARCAP report on the incident in full before I try to give some kind of theory (if I can). Although I probably won't have time until the weekend to do so.


It's obviously a crane or construction tower.

But seriously, how may people saw this and what size did all of them or most of them say it was? I've read some people say it was Frisbee size. Then I've read it was six to ten feet in diameter. Perhaps drone size. But a drone cant create "an almost mile and a half long tunnel through the clouds with bright blue sky at the end of it". Or can an unconventional drone do this? Does the USG/military have advanced propulsion systems and unconventional drones? Then I've read it was twenty-two to eighty eight feet in diameter. If it was indeed any of the above then how the heck can it be weather phenomenon? If it was as large as 88 ft in diameter it's definitely not any drone you can buy or make in your garage.

The FAA said it was weather phenomenon so no investigation is necessary. Odd. You'd think multiple "ranking" employees reporting an unauthorized craft in high traffic airspace would warrant an in depth investigation. I can't buy this explanation from the FAA:

"That night was a perfect atmospheric condition in terms of low [cloud] ceiling and a lot of airport lights. When the lights shine up into the clouds sometimes you can see funny things. That's our take on it."

In many cases I have two options. Option one would be advanced US military technology used in some sort of test or PSYOPS. Option two, well, aliens. I have a hard time going all in on option two. Why all the secrecy if really aliens? Quit playing games. Land, tell us how ignorant and violent we are. Change some things. Pronto. I have to go with military technology and tests/PSYOPS.

If "enemy" nations think UFO's are real it gives the USA an extreme advantage as far as neutralizing nuclear capabilities. It gives an advantage as far as violating "enemies" airspace. I'm of the opinion the Cold War never ended. That Russia/China are being targeted by the USG and they are now forging an alliance which didn't really function or exist during the communist/capitalist Cold War. Now it's more of an imperialist/competition struggle for a larger and larger piece of the global pie. The USG is always trying to find ways to neutralize potential enemies nuclear capabilities. Without going into too much political/historical detail....that's the only earthly theory I can come up with.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:35 AM
link   
Altered photographs are often a nuisance in UFO research but, like everything else, alternations leave traces and there is an entire field of study dedicated to detecting just these types of hoaxes. Government agencies want to make sure all their intelligence is accurate including verifying whether or not photos or images have been altered.

Furthermore, just regular detective work will also detect forgeries, simply trace back the image or photo, to the camera. If it's on film simply find out who developed it and when, if it's digital then trace it back to the camera that took the photo, then the computer than stored the photo, then with enough digging find out if the photo was ever transferred or altered on that computer, etc. Just basic CSI stuff.

The Chicago airport flyovers were interesting and pretty convincing.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: JeanPaul

The hole through the clouds phenomenon has been seen before but the NARCAP report and Lesley Kean's investigations suggest the conditions were not conducive for such a meteorological event to occur naturally.

However I am also unsure how many people actually witnessed the hole in the clouds. I think it may only have been a half dozen at most. I have no idea at the moment what the object was and what cause the hole in the clouds.



edit on 28/5/15 by mirageman because: typo



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 12:43 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Read the NARCAP report, you may see names you recognize and facts you haven't considered yet.


In any event, this is my favorite "recent case", heck it might be the best one period, which doesn't say much for the phenom being active in the last 30+ years....



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

There's audio of 'eyewitness' in this old, Jerry Pippin podcast. She compares the object to something 'ceramic' and it's an interesting piece of tape.

Springer gets a few mentions in there too.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 04:54 AM
link   
a reply to: AnonymousRider


The detail that proved to me it was real was the hole in the cloud that all outdoor and some indoor witnesses attested to being created by the craft. This is Physical proof...A thing often missing from UFO cases.


Have you ever seen an airplane or rocket punch a hole in a cloud? In order to see blue sky, the witnesses would need to be directly under the cloud-tunnel, otherwise all they would see is cloud. It is precisely this detail that makes the story so suspicious. Incidentally, a witness saying they saw something is not physical evidence.


It literally drives me mad that this sort of thing is not blasted on the front page of every newspaper and website from Beijing to Boston.


There are newspapers that blast this sort of thing, but they have no credibility. Ufology has long suffered from "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 12:06 PM
link   
Extraordinary story, one of the best ever to unfold here on ATS.

Springer says the eyewitness "apparently died". My memory says she went out of contact having been ill and needing to be hospitalized and then vanished. This could suggest a coincidence in which she tragically died before going on camera, as he said. It could also be that her explanations of illness were an intentional cover and she always planned to disappear as part of an elaborate and pointless hoax (what kind of hoaxter vanishes BEFORE the big payoff?) or that she was ill but used it to disappear, fearing who knows what.

It's hard not to conclude this object was classified tech. What I'm curious about is that it behaved as if the operator didn't know it was visible for some time, as if it was going about a normal patrol until reports started coming in, someone alerted the operator, and at that point it moved to its designed error location precisely in the towers' blind spot until it was repaired.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:04 PM
link   
a reply to: sepermeru

I think it is a very big stretch to think that humans, military people, or contractors would decide to test valuable and highly classified equipment over a very busy airport, putting their new toy at risk, and other aircraft, and anyone on the ground.
In fact, it is absolutely ludicrous to think that people would do that. Imagine the bad publicity an accident would incur for the participating agencies for having some untested, new and highly technical flying contraption tested right over one of the busiest airports in the entire world.

That would be a very big risk to take, and what would be the motive to test it there? What is the payoff?

Our own government, the FAA and all the rest just don't allow or do testing over busy airports with or without notifying everyone at the airport first.

Another interesting point is that these "displays" of unknown craft happening all over have been happening like this for a long time. Like a show of superiority. They have flown over restricted airspace, they have shot down aircraft that first fired upon them. From 1952 till the 60's and even during Vietnam, it was military policy to shoot these things down, but all that resulted was our own pilots and ships in the ocean being sunk and shot down for doing so.
Finally, after a lot of losses of people and hardware, our top brass decided it wasn't going to shoot at them anymore.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: DJW001


In order to see blue sky, the witnesses would need to be directly under the cloud-tunnel


Yes, and it would need to have a perfect straight line ascent. Perhaps the cloud cover wasnt as claimed.



There are newspapers that blast this sort of thing, but they have no credibility. Ufology has long suffered from "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome.


A Pulitzer prize writer for the Tribune covered their story, it has the most hits in the history of the paper.

From wikipedia

Media coverage
The Chicago O'Hare airport UFO story was picked up by various major mainstream media groups such as CNN, CBS, MSNBC, Fox News, The Chicago Tribune, and NPR.



Incidentally, a witness saying they saw something is not physical evidence.


Really? So because we dont have physical evidence of the Belgium mass sighting, you have some doubt it happend?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I don't think it was a test, actually, but a failure of a craft in regular use. You can't think of any reason a small, highly maneuverable, invisible drone would be useful around airports? I can.

Also, I think when we see new technology, it can be so mind-bending we will remember or directly perceive it oddly. I think it's entirely possible that even professional aviators, if they've never seen something before, could be convinced no known technology could begin to duplicate it. But if you filter the extremes between eyewitnesses you end up with an object behaving in a way no declassified object precisely does, but which is theoretically possible based on known technology.
edit on 29-5-2015 by sepermeru because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:13 PM
link   
a reply to: Springer

a reply to: Kandinsky

Thanks for the extra info guys. I will have a look and listen over the coming weekend. Sounds like more fun than watching the English FA Cup Final .


The story of our eyewitness is ever so slightly peculiar and disturbing as well.

I'll let you know what I think after reviewing them both.




posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: sepermeru
This could suggest a coincidence in which she tragically died before going on camera, as he said. It could also be that her explanations of illness were an intentional cover and she always planned to disappear as part of an elaborate and pointless hoax


Having spoken with her most likely longer than anyone did at the time, she was definitely not faking the story, nor was she part of anything other than going to pick someone up at the airport, and as I recall one was a pilot, who said his plane was told to hold descent because of the UAP.


originally posted by: sepermeru
It's hard not to conclude this object was classified tech.


You have to really think about this. If it were a part of the phenomena we call 'the ufo enigma' - meaning the unknown manifestation of some sort of thing in the sky that clearly exceeds our understanding - thats one possibility.

The other is as you said. It's ours, and may have been malfunctioning or having issues.

Neither one will lead to an answer, and really it's unproductive to even formulate a theory on either. We have a busy international airport, post 9/11. An unknown object is sighted over the airport. No planes scrambled? Not one? That would say that the tech is ours, and they are at high levels, fully informed as to whats going on.

But...what if planes were scrambled? In front of a massive amount of witnesses? The problem with that is when you scramble F-15s, you have to answer one question: why did you scramble F-15s. They would have to account to the UAP being there, which is something they won't do.

If it's representative of the phenomena, it may have only been visible via a small viewing area. Such effects are well documented. To consider that means that potentially those who scramble jets had no idea it was even there.

But the real issue there is the accountability. Had they sent planes to investigate, that would have presented a very sticky PR nightmare, both for the airport and the military.
edit on 29-5-2015 by jritzmann because: spelling



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: jritzmann

The tape I linked to sounds truthful and I know that's a bias on my part. So I believe you're spot on in what you say.

The way she collects her words and speaks in a natural way doesn't raise flags for me. In contrast, I was listening to a Schirmer interview and his fluency raised a bunch of flags that I wasn't expecting. Bias is a funny old thing.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 03:46 PM
link   
a reply to: 111DPKING111

It's an odd one isn't it? Mixing conjecture with the known facts it seems we have:

1) A rare daylight sighting of a disc above one of the world's busiest airports.

2) Despite a large number of 'potential' witnesses nothing much to show for it on video or photo. Nor have many witnesses come forward. Those that have remain 'anonymous'.

3) A massive tunnel like hole punched in the clouds and reported by a handful of witnesses (at best).

4) Some noticeable friction between the staff in the United Tower and FAA on duty at the time suggesting one or more previous altercations on this topic. Also strong suggestions that employees feared for their jobs if they spoke about the incident publicly.

5) Only one genuine but poor quality photo that has not been proven to be a fake.

6) The witness that appeared on ATS suffering from a terminal illness.

All things I am still pondering.



new topics

top topics



 
105
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join