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

a reply to: Kandinsky


I've thought of that a lot myself, how the object could affect the cloud vapor long enough for blue sky to be observed before it collapsed back to normal.

And that brought me to a case where a guy with his son was on a lake and a USO came up just under their boat, and later their boat was totally magnetized and "buzzed" and metal objects stuck to it like a strong magnet even though the boat was all aluminum.

There are a lot of cases where cars and aircraft have also been magnetized like that, and so if that same effect could act upon aluminum which is non magnetic, then it isn't a stretch for even air and water to be conditioned by that same effect to function differently and keep that tunnel to blue sky open longer? I'm really stretching my own imagination here, but it is thought provoking to put the details of other cases together and come up with possibilities like this.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

I'm really stretching my own imagination here, but it is thought provoking to put the details of other cases together and come up with possibilities like this.

To be honest, I think a lot of people find that 'stretching' our imaginations is a positive side to the subject. Nobody has nailed it all down in decades so thinking out loud and looking at reasonable possibilities is fair game.

I ploughed through the NARCAP report. It's not the easiest of reads and seems to take a lot of the eye witness statements on face value.

But there are actually very few witnesses on the record. All of them remain anonymous as well. The report also more than hints that initially witnesses employed at O'Hare were happy to volunteer information but much less so in the days that followed the incident. Mainly because they felt their jobs were at risk if the continued to talk.


courtesy NARCAP

As regards the "Hole in the Clouds" phenomenon it states:

The phenomenon we are attempting to explain is described in the words of one of the witnesses:

"At around 4:3-[I in the afternoon of November 7th several employees of United Airline company witnessed a “disc shaped object“ that was seen “hovering over gate Cl7 at the C concourse“ of the Chicago O*Hare international Airport.“ The object, which could not be identified by witnesses as any known aircraft, was said to be “holding very steady and appeared to be trying to stay close to the cloud cover.“

According to testimony given to NARCAP by one witness, after looking away for a short while, the witness “noticed that the craft...[was]. .. no longer there but there was an almost perfect circle in the cloud layer where the craft had been, The hole disappeared a few minutes later-"

.....one highly qualified witness [E] confirmed that he and witness [LT] saw the hole at about 4:20 pm.

So we have only a handful of witnesses on record regarding the whole event. With as few as 2 or 3 describing the hole in the clouds. The report dismisses that this was all a hoax and also plays down the likelihood of this being some type of military craft because of the fact that it happened over a US Airport.

What does it all point to?

I still can't get my head around it all and it's defeated people a lot more dedicated to this case than me.

I'm tempted to say that the "Hole in the Clouds" was perhaps no more than a meteorological coincidence, or even an optical illusion, and simply provides the gloss to the story. Given that hardly anyone saw it. The rather low number of witnesses (including civilians in and around a busy airport) that have gone on record is also puzzling. It almost seems like it was really a none event. But then the tapes of the control tower conversations hint at something that had been going on before Nov 7th 2006. The ATS eyewitness story just adds another layer of mystery.

I suspect what we have is more than just a simple UFO sighting. It seems to me that something was going on before this event and this story also involves the politics (right down to a fairly low level) between aviation industry staff and the FAA. Whether that involves previous UAP events that we have not been made privy to I don't know. But I have a feeling that the O'Hare UFO of Nov 7th 2006 was actually a tiny part of something that has not been, and may never be, unravelled.

a reply to: mirageman

I've always suspected a black project piece of hardware that was intentionally being tested over one of the busiest airports on the planet for a number of reasons that aren't to hard to rationalize.

That said, man do we have some serious technology behind the curtains(!) if, that's what it really was.

And that thought (crazy tech) leads me back to the UFO/UAP phenomena that nobody can seem to get a handle on... Well, unless you're willing to believe mummies are aliens of course.

Excellent thread MM, thanks again.

originally posted by: mirageman
I ploughed through the NARCAP report. It's not the easiest of reads and seems to take a lot of the eye witness statements on face value.

But there are actually very few witnesses on the record. All of them remain anonymous as well. The report also more than hints that initially witnesses employed at O'Hare were happy to volunteer information but much less so in the days that followed the incident. Mainly because they felt their jobs were at risk if the continued to talk.

That report is really something in the detail, it is an exceptional piece of work by what is a small team.
But as you say, so few witnesses, while one witness alone insists on quite a number of people taking pictures in the car park, not necessarily all employees.
I have to say too that the FAA didn't exactly cover themselves in glory, and by intentionally not investigating this event from the word go, has all sorts of connotations. What would they do had this ended up a collision, say with secret military or an unknown piece of airwear and a passenger plane, they are all fallible it seems?
Given that report, it seems like a slow process of grave digging for the FAA, and for the military too if they insist in behaving like schmucks around airports, if it was them, which I doubt...a bit.

a reply to: Springer

I don't know if we'll ever know what was seen that day. It was only watching the Unexplained Files and seeing the faked photos (probably unintentionally) passed off as real that prompted me to post about the case.

I thought with it being one of the more recent UFO stories (despite being close to a decade old itself) someone else might offer a bit more information. However it seems that, whatever it was that, no one around O'Hare that day wants to talk about it even now.

a reply to: smurfy

Yes the report is highly detailed. Although it also highlights how few people wanted to speak about the sighting as well.

a reply to: Springer

And that thought (crazy tech) leads me back to the UFO/UAP phenomena that nobody can seem to get a handle on...

I've come to the conclusion that, as far as ATS is concerned, there are several people standing around with handles in their hand that they won't affix to the phenomenon due to patriotism.

That's certainly why I have a back-log of posts once meant for this thread, and that other one.

The tech isn't even all that, or a bag of chips. It's kinda lame, and it's kinda Franken.

It's Frankenlame.

For what it's worth, I think that the United folks at O'Hare came to see it that way too: as something concerning National Security and no longer worth pursuing. They knew it wasn't aliens.

By telling them all to be "vigilant" and then giving them the "Boy That Cried Wolf" treatment when they were, they put those poor folks in a classic Batesonesque double-bind. Bateson originally posited his hypothesis of the double-bind as an early model for understanding schizophrenia.

Okay, forgive me if I'm just wasting thread space here, but I found this:

link to patent

Filed July 1, 2002 -

It's a system involving a device which generates "particle cloud material" which creates a cloud 'screen', as well as a special (very complicated, see patent) projector which when projecting an image onto the 'clouds', creates "augmented reality" simulations...


So, it was a cloudy day at O'hare -

- what if there was one of these 'cloud screens' among the regular clouds, and the UFO (as well as it's subsequent 'departure', including the 'hole' thru which blue sky was seen) was projected onto it?

The thing is, I'm not talking about a "Blue Beam"/holograph type thing here - the patent describes how the device creates 'perceived' depth with the imaging, so it doesn't have to be a 3D projection in order for people to perceive a three dimensional 'interactive' object...


Of course, it is entirely possible that I am not understanding the patent correctly, so I will be interested to see if anyone thinks there's any merit to the idea...

Edit to say:
Oh I suppose the main problem would be whether the 'perceived' 3D would carry over onto a photograph of what would merely have been an image...

a reply to: Bybyots

Well, yeah, maybe...

Or no?

That's the beauty of the phenom, it refuses anything that approaches logic, all by itself hucksters and B.S. artists aside.

a reply to: lostgirl

Of course, it is entirely possible that I am not understanding the patent correctly

Yep, I'd check it again. It is meant to be an improvement on this.



Here is the result of that patent: Heliodisplay

- Viewing a Heliodisplay image in direct sunlight is almost impossible.

Aside from that, your theory, based on your misunderstanding, has a scalability issue.

a reply to: Springer

That's the beauty of the phenom, it refuses anything that approaches logic,

No it doesn't. It refuses folks that find it impossible to maintain two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function.

F. Scott Fitzgerald

And there is nothing beautiful about it. Being as it has been reduced to the weather or Franken-tech, it's "disgusting", remember?

Just adding the original Narcap report from the original site.

Excellent OP as always mirageman.

Narcap O'hare report

a reply to: Bybyots

Yeah, I kind of suspected that might be the case, but it seemed like a somewhat plausible idea at the time (2:00 in the morning)

Oh well, all the people who are 'emotionally invested' in 'ETs from distant planets', as the only possible 'source' of UFO phenomena, will be very happy to know I was wrong...

a reply to: lostgirl

Oh well, all the people who are 'emotionally invested' in 'ETs from distant planets', as the only possible 'source' of UFO phenomena, will be very happy to know I was wrong...

lostgirl, you're not "wrong", you just didn't read it three times. You have to do that with that sort of documentation. I mean seriously, reading that crap is a skill all unto itself.

Jeez, since you bring it up: I'm emotionally invested too. It sucks when my favorite stuff has to be removed from the table because "there is no there, there", honestly, this is a horrible business akin to self-flagellation most of the time.

Plus, I am often tremendously "wrong". You've caught me oout yourself, at times.

Neat display, though, huh?

a reply to: lostgirl

I think they'd call that "blue sky" thinking in the world of corporate stereotypes.

Nice idea and thanks for dropping by lostgirl.

I don't know though. Was it alien tech, black ops tech, a total misunderstanding about what was seen or even a weird weather phenomenon as the "official" conclusion states?

Perhaps the weather phenomenon was actually caused by secret technology?

Interesting theory because I really can't come up with one for this case. It seems like it should be a mass sighting in daylight with multiple witnesses and photos. But the evidence has not been forthcoming to support that. Air industry employees I can understand keeping schtum for a number of reasons but their continued employment being the main one. However the civilian population passing by and passing through the airport have remained just as silent.

Why?

a reply to: Bybyots

Hello again Bybyots. You might be right.

I've come to the conclusion that, as far as ATS is concerned, there are several people standing around with handles in their hand that they won't affix to the phenomenon due to patriotism. That's certainly why I have a back-log of posts once meant for this thread, and that other one. The tech isn't even all that, or a bag of chips. It's kinda lame, and it's kinda Franken. ....

By telling them all to be "vigilant" and then giving them the "Boy That Cried Wolf" treatment when they were, they put those poor folks in a classic Batesonesque double-bind

I think I may be suffering from the double bind with this subject at times myself.

Hell - even that "bag of chips" phrase means the same thing but is actually two different things either side of the Atlantic.





Anyway potato products aside I always enjoy your posts.

Regards MM

a reply to: mirageman

Let's keep the crisps out of this please...

originally posted by: mirageman
However the civilian population passing by and passing through the airport have remained just as silent.

Why?

Well, I would guess that there may not have been that many 'civilians' who even saw it. I mean, with most airports you drive straight into a parking garage and then walk into the terminal thru a covered walk way, so once you've parked you don't even have a 'view' of the sky...

...and as the UFO was quite high up it maybe wouldn't have been in the line of sight of people in cars.

As far as the report from a witness who saw people in a parking lot taking pictures -
- well, those in a parking lot would probably have been airport/airline personnel, because the parking garages (being closer/more convenient) would be reserved for passengers...

a reply to: Springer

Let's keep the crisps out of this please...

You dieting, Bro?