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

a reply to: mirageman

I want to correct one of your points, "Eyewitness" wasn't suffering a terminal illness as far as we know. She told me (the last time I spoke with her-the week before I flew up to do the TV show) that she had knee surgery and there were complications and that's why she wasn't answering her phone for the prior week or ten days...

One of the people who came to know her in Chicago that I was speaking with at the time, Sam Marranto - (appologies if I misspelled his last name) the MUFON Illinois State Director, later told me he had heard or read (I don't recall which) that she died.

Jeff Ritzmann, Sam Marranto, and myself all knew her real name and had her cell#, Sam spent a few hours with her in person.

Other than that one factual mistake your assessment is as good as any I've ever had.

a reply to: Springer

Oh I see.

So our Eyewitness passed away quite unexpectedly. I have no problem with you clearing that matter up. Poor assumption on my behalf. But that fact makes me a tiny bit more uneasy and spooks me a little more about the case. It could be a nasty coincidence of course.

However I suspect all we have is the tip of a very deep iceberg here and that most of the information relating to this case has never surfaced.

a reply to: 111DPKING111

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

Because there is no physical evidence of the Belgium sighting, there is no reason to assume that it was physical.

originally posted by: mirageman
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.

I was more so talking about witness accounts of the craft/object itself. What size was it? I've read anywhere from Frisbee size to massive. A picture to go along with witness accounts would be great.

Yet another frustrating UFO case. Extremely compelling eyewitness testimony accompanied by, at most, extremely ambiguous photographic evidence. I look forward to the day, with all of the modern, high-def cameras walking around the globe, where one of these UFOs is captured by 10s or 100s relatively close up and clearly, compelling me to actually pause and put some credence into one of these reports.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 111DPKING111

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

Because there is no physical evidence of the Belgium sighting, there is no reason to assume that it was physical.

Interesting, so if you see something fly overhead, but never obtain physical evidence, it was nothing I suppose? And if multiple people in the flight path of this object also tell you they saw the same object, still nothing I suppose?

Afraid we are on completely different wavelengths.

a reply to: redtic

Yet another frustrating UFO case.

I do think there are many with better evidence than this case, just need to dig in.

Cases recommended by various writers/investigators, compiled by Isaakoi

Some I prefer
Westall 66 (start in at 9:47, picture at 11:00). Drone like craft levitates up.
Ravenna police chase
Madagascar green ufo, double sighting
Belgium (start in at 2:20min) ufo wave
Minot AFB B-52 incident
Lakenheath-Bentwaters UFO

a reply to: mirageman

However I suspect all we have is the tip of a very deep iceberg here and that most of the information relating to this case has never surfaced.

I think that sums it, its really unfortunate the tower couldnt confirm the sighting. Still interested to hear what jritzmann has left to say.

originally posted by: Springer

Jeff Ritzmann, Sam Marranto, and myself all knew her real name and had her cell#, Sam spent a few hours with her in person.

With that info is it not possible then to confirm what did happen to her ?

I know there would be a cost in that but it is a disturbing loose end.

originally posted by: 111DPKING111

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: 111DPKING111

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

Because there is no physical evidence of the Belgium sighting, there is no reason to assume that it was physical.

Interesting, so if you see something fly overhead, but never obtain physical evidence, it was nothing I suppose? And if multiple people in the flight path of this object also tell you they saw the same object, still nothing I suppose?

Afraid we are on completely different wavelengths.

Where did I say it was nothing? We are on entirely different wavelengths: I make a distinction between an experience and an object, you do not.

This is an amazing case, and it seems like a no-brainer to me that an object was indeed hovering there. It generated chatter back and forth between crew and ATC, with a matrix of credible, qualified eye witnesses, and left a hole in the clouds. The witnesses also get extra validation, since they know there is no room to joke about this, and they are the most qualified to rule out normal aircraft.

I understand there is a lack of evidence regarding this object being picked up on radar, but it seems to me this supports it a little more, since multiple people did indeed see something, and if it wasn't "something", i.e. a plane, then it would have been picked up. I always felt an object that was engineered to be anti-gravity and could zip away instantly just maybe can decide if it wants to be detected or not. That's a guess on my part, as I have absolutely no expertise about that.

I understand to package this case nice and tight we cover every nook and cranny, as the smart people I've been reading here have been doing, but I do think any normal person who was presented with this evidence would say there was something indeed hovering there.

a reply to: mirageman

Those in close enough proximity below could even see the blue sky above through the clouds.

I keep returning to this detail because it cannot possibly be squared with reality. The UFO was seen at sunset on a very cloudy day. The sky would have been orange. (Busy airports are perpetually covered in a hydrocarbon haze.) A record of the weather for that day can be found here:

www.wunderground.com...

Initially, I thought that the witnesses may have seen the beginnings of a funnel cloud, which dissipated rapidly, creating the illusion of an object below the clouds that suddenly took off through them. The barometer was holding fairly steady all day, so this cannot explain it. It might just have been a quirk of cloud convection.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: mirageman

Those in close enough proximity below could even see the blue sky above through the clouds.

I keep returning to this detail because it cannot possibly be squared with reality. The UFO was seen at sunset on a very cloudy day. The sky would have been orange. (Busy airports are perpetually covered in a hydrocarbon haze.) A record of the weather for that day can be found here:

www.wunderground.com...

Initially, I thought that the witnesses may have seen the beginnings of a funnel cloud, which dissipated rapidly, creating the illusion of an object below the clouds that suddenly took off through them. The barometer was holding fairly steady all day, so this cannot explain it. It might just have been a quirk of cloud convection.

Would the pilots and crew have made this observational error?

a reply to: taxed

Would the pilots and crew have made this observational error?

Only if they were human beings.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: taxed

Would the pilots and crew have made this observational error?

Only if they were human beings.

I'm totally with you. I, too, think pilots are human beings. I guess, to ask another way, do you give pilots more validity, in terms of determining if something in the sky is an object, versus a weather anomaly?

a reply to: taxed

I'm totally with you. I, too, think pilots are human beings. I guess, to ask another way, do you give pilots more validity, in terms of determining if something in the sky is an object, versus a weather anomaly?

No; everybody has seen clouds from below their entire life. Experienced pilots have probably seen things like St. Elmo's fire that most people have not, but it probably freaks them out the first time, just like it would you or me.

What is significant in this case is that no non-humans observed anything: no radar returns, no security camera images, no radio interference. This suggests a "trick of the light" rather than a material object. The story also shows a great deal of embellishment; that explains the impossible detail of the blue sky.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: taxed

I'm totally with you. I, too, think pilots are human beings. I guess, to ask another way, do you give pilots more validity, in terms of determining if something in the sky is an object, versus a weather anomaly?

No; everybody has seen clouds from below their entire life. Experienced pilots have probably seen things like St. Elmo's fire that most people have not, but it probably freaks them out the first time, just like it would you or me.

What is significant in this case is that no non-humans observed anything: no radar returns, no security camera images, no radio interference. This suggests a "trick of the light" rather than a material object. The story also shows a great deal of embellishment; that explains the impossible detail of the blue sky.

These are good points. Were there cameras that should have captured that object? If so, are they accessible?

a reply to: DJW001

I tend to see the 'hole in cloud' aspect as extraneous to the main detail of a disc-shaped object. One thing I've noticed over the years is how people often draw in details to add value to their sightings reports. Historically, some researchers were predisposed to see physical traces that, nowadays, seem a little misjudged. It was enthusiasm for the pursuit rather than wilful deceit in my opinion.

If we imagine an object of any shape or size rising vertically through a cloud, it wouldn't leave a neat hole. It would need to displace the droplets and that would cause movement in the air. It's like when we wave smoke away with a hand. The smoke eddies and whirls around, it doesn't vanish in the path our hand passed through. So instead of a hole-punch, it would leave swirling cloud.

I'm not a meteorologist, but I've read a little about the Bergeron process and the way clouds are formed and how particles are displaced. It's hard to conceive of a force that would be capable of neatly displacing a column of cloud despite having looked for one. Nevertheless, I'm all ears if someone can show that I'm on the wrong track.

What I think might have happened is the object caught their attention and a normal gap in the clouds gained significance in the aftermath.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Exactly. Once you realize that the hole was the witness' imagination providing details, the more likely it seems that the "object" was just a natural cloud formation being observed under unusual circumstances and colored by imagination. Clouds can look like boiling water seen upside down; what they probably saw was a bubble that stood out more than the others.

a reply to: DJW001

I don't think I can go so far as to explain the reported object as a cloud feature. The hole-punch aspect doesn't make sense, but the details of the object were reportedly solid.

If you listen to the Jerry Pippen show (it's a 5 minute segment some 10 minutes in), she's rather scrupulous and considered in her description. She had a good few minutes watching it and describes something that looked more ceramic than metallic. She was reporting it within hours of the incident and before media tinsel was added to the narrative.

Incidentally, at least one researcher who was involved has a knack for mythologising any and all reports. The influence of their reporting, in my opinion, could reshape and interfere with how people recalled the details. This could create a level of misplaced certainty and faulty recall.