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.

 

O'Hare Airport UFO Sighting -- UPDATE: Photos & Analysis

page: 13
99
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
There are no photos yet.
There are artist rendering of the craft, just added to the link below

and also:
Video of CNN interview with one of the witnesses from the O'Hare UFO sighting

Witness Video and Sketches of the Craft




posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman

BTW, here is a Picture from Nov. 7th 2006 of the Chicago Skyline that shows the Cloud layer we are discussing. (Janet S. Reed photographer.)



blogs.trb.com...



Hi,
I just thought I'd post my .02 worth on this photo you've got posted here and that it's not really a true depiction of how cloudy it looked at the O'Hare airport on the 7th of Nov. at the time when that UFO was sighted.
I live up on the top floor of a high-rise right on Lake Erie with a view of not only the lake, but also of the Cleveland skyline that's a little further away than the Chicago skyline of this person's high rise apt. that's shown in that photo you have posted here.
I'm just saying that most likely this photo was taken during the early morning hours because this is how it looks off my balcony too during those days with an overcast. It's really more fog than anything else and it's just an extension of the fog that's already over the lake at that time in the morning.
And it goes without saying that the fog clears up fairly rapidly after the sun breaks where by 9am it's usually gone.
But you would be amazed how much less cloudy and foggy it is once you drive a mile away from the lake on mornings when it's like that.
O'Hare is 20 miles NW of downtown Chicago and I'm absolutely sure that the visibility shown in photograph you are showing is no way indicative of how it looked at the O'Hare airport at the time when that UFO sighting occured for reasons I mentioned above -- it's already a good distance from the lake (Lake Michigan) as it is... and it was 4:30 PM when that sighting occurred. Here's a map showing where that airport is located.






[edit on 7-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
The sketch on that video link I posted a couple of posts back, is really crappy ! Any old "Oval" is drawn, that has no detail and lop-sided and the witness says how great the sketch is. That kind of threw me off and makes me more skeptical of the story.

How was it oval shaped? In it's diameter? Or the view on looking at it straight on, top to bottom? Spherical was used to describe the shape also, but that would be a circle slightly less rounded and not really oval. Then they say it punched a round hole into the clouds, that was the exact shape and size of it, like a cookie-cutter effect. Just wondering....



[edit on 7-1-2007 by violet]



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by violet
The sketch on that video link I posted a couple of posts back, is really crappy ! Any old "Oval" is drawn, that has no detail and lop-sided and the witness says how great the sketch is. That kind of threw me off and makes me more skeptical of the story.

How was it oval shaped? In it's diameter? Or the view on looking at it straight on, top to bottom? Spherical was used to describe the shape also, but that would be a circle slightly less rounded and not really oval. Then they say it punched a round hole into the clouds, that was the exact shape and size of it, like a cookie-cutter effect. Just wondering....



[edit on 7-1-2007 by violet]


Looks like a traditional disk shaped ufo to me.



posted on Jan, 7 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea

I'm just saying that most likely this photo was taken during the early morning hours because this is how it looks off my balcony too during those days with an overcast. It's really more fog than anything else and it's just an extension of the fog that's already over the lake at that time in the morning.
And it goes without saying that the fog clears up fairly rapidly after the sun breaks where by 9am it's usually gone.
But you would be amazed how much less cloudy and foggy it is once you drive a mile away from the lake on mornings when it's like that.
O'Hare is 20 miles NW of downtown Chicago and I'm absolutely sure that the visibility shown in photograph you are showing is no way indicative of how it looked at the O'Hare airport at the time when that UFO sighting occured for reasons I mentioned above -- it's already a good distance from the lake (Lake Michigan) as it is... and it was 4:30 PM when that sighting occurred.



Hey Palasheea,

We know the ceiling on Nov. 7th, 2006 was very low all day , 2,100 ft being the highest level reported all day. At 4:30 pm the ceiling was said to be at 1,900 ft.

The Photo shown shows this low overcast layer.

Here is more information about the weather on that day.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Another article from Chicago Tribune reporter.Jon Hilkevitch

This has new testimonies from people who emailed him.


A man in Aurora said he came home from work on the same day as the O'Hare sighting, looked skyward in his back yard and spied a shiny round object hovering between two masses of clouds. And then it disappeared.

"I sat on a plane at the Port Columbus, Ohio, airport for at least an hour on the afternoon of Nov. 7. This flight was scheduled to arrive at O'Hare at 4:30 p.m. (the same time as the UFO sighting) The flight was further delayed for about another hour and circled the airport waiting to land. The pilot was not able to provide us with a reason for the delays. My daughter said when she arrived at the airport to pick me up around 4:30 that there were very many military personnel at the airport."


chicagotribune.com

mod edit: shortened link

[edit on 8-1-2007 by sanctum]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Originally posted by Palasheea

I'm just saying that most likely this photo was taken during the early morning hours because this is how it looks off my balcony too during those days with an overcast. It's really more fog than anything else and it's just an extension of the fog that's already over the lake at that time in the morning.
And it goes without saying that the fog clears up fairly rapidly after the sun breaks where by 9am it's usually gone.
But you would be amazed how much less cloudy and foggy it is once you drive a mile away from the lake on mornings when it's like that.
O'Hare is 20 miles NW of downtown Chicago and I'm absolutely sure that the visibility shown in photograph you are showing is no way indicative of how it looked at the O'Hare airport at the time when that UFO sighting occured for reasons I mentioned above -- it's already a good distance from the lake (Lake Michigan) as it is... and it was 4:30 PM when that sighting occurred.



Hey Palasheea,

We know the ceiling on Nov. 7th, 2006 was very low all day , 2,100 ft being the highest level reported all day. At 4:30 pm the ceiling was said to be at 1,900 ft.

The Photo shown shows this low overcast layer.

Here is more information about the weather on that day.


That doesn't seem right. The sears tower only goes to about 1200 ft (I think). If the ceilling is at 1900, then the overcast layer should be ABOVE the skyscrapers, not the skyscrapers emerging from the ceiling.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 08:04 PM
link   

Hey Palasheea,

We know the ceiling on Nov. 7th, 2006 was very low all day , 2,100 ft being the highest level reported all day. At 4:30 pm the ceiling was said to be at 1,900 ft.

The Photo shown shows this low overcast layer.


I'm just saying that that's fog off the lake that's shown in that photo and not clouds off this woman's balcony.
But even in this photo you can still see that there's a low cloud ceiling up in the sky.. but that white stuff that's seen below the city skyline (actually dispersed all around in that photo) from this woman's hi-rise apartment is fog off the lake which is how it looks off the lake on mornings like that when it's really foggy.

Believe me, I know what I'm talking about... sometimes it get's so foggy out there, when I open up my balcony doors, the fog sometimes comes and fills my up my living room and dining room!

Anyway, no one mentioned anything about it being foggy at the O'Hare when they saw that UFO at 4:30PM -- If it was foggy too, they most definitely would have mentioned it but it's my guess in that case they probably would not have even seen it!



[edit on 8-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sr Wing Commander

That doesn't seem right. The sears tower only goes to about 1200 ft (I think). If the ceilling is at 1900, then the overcast layer should be ABOVE the skyscrapers, not the skyscrapers emerging from the ceiling.


Hey Sr Wing Commander,

We know that the ceiling was at 1,900 ft at 4:30pm. That would have been above the Sears tower and the Chicago Skyline , but still very low.

The highest point on the Sears tower is 1,729. The Roof is 1,450 ft 7 in . So at 4:30 pm the ceiling would have only been 171ft above the Western Antenna of the Sears Tower.

Clearly the clouds are much lower than that on the picture from the WGN Weather blog. But still it is a picture of Chicago on Nov. 7th, 2006. And we know that the ceiling at it highest point in the day was 2,100ft.

Here is the Picture of the day from Earthcam of Chicago Nov. 7th , 2006 taken at 12:00 Noon.

www.earthcam.com...



But that's not much help.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Sorry if this has been posted here already...

THEY'RE HERE!
( Or so we'd like to think. )

A purported UFO sighting at O'Hare gives flight to hopes that we're not alone

By Jon Hilkevitch
the Tribune's transportation reporter
Published January 7, 2007



Admittedly, those big thoughts were not on my mind when the director of a UFO-watching group first called to offer an exclusive Chicago angle on what might be the biggest story of all humankind--a visit by an alien spaceship.

No, ET had not phoned home. But, said Peter Davenport of the National UFO Reporting Center, this was "an excellent, stunning case involving a genuine UFO from some other part of our galaxy or our universe."

Umm... is it just me or is that a bit premature?

The rest of the article is worth a read and he concludes...


It would be nice if physical evidence existed to substantiate the claims made at O'Hare on Nov. 7. Airport surveillance cameras are trained on the airfield, not the heavens, and FAA radar has so far turned up nothing unusual.

How is it that someone smuggled a camera cell phone into a Baghdad execution chamber to chronicle the hanging of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein last month, but no one among the thousands of airport workers and travelers at O'Hare snapped a picture for the cosmic family photo album?

The answer, along with an explanation about how the universe works, remains a mystery. We earthlings possess inquisitive minds, but we are, after all, only human.



posted on Jan, 8 2007 @ 11:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real




By Jon Hilkevitch
the Tribune's transportation reporter
Published January 7, 2007


Admittedly, those big thoughts were not on my mind when the director of a UFO-watching group first called to offer an exclusive Chicago angle on what might be the biggest story of all humankind--a visit by an alien spaceship.

No, ET had not phoned home. But, said Peter Davenport of the National UFO Reporting Center, this was "an excellent, stunning case involving a genuine UFO from some other part of our galaxy or our universe."

Umm... is it just me or is that a bit premature?





Again to be fair, here is what is posted on NUFORC's site , or Davenport's side of the story.


www.nuforc.org...

Moreover, it is unclear why Mr. Hilkevitch responds to the question by saying, "...they ((i.e. Peter Davenport, Director of the National UFO Reporting Center)) kept wanting me to say this was a visit from some other world and further proof that, uh, we, on this planet are visited regularly by other beings..." To set the record straight on this point, no such representation was made to Mr. Hilkevitch. His claim we consider to be a misrepresentation of the facts regarding our role in the case. We did nothing more than contact the Chicago Tribune in mid-December to apprise that newspaper of the sighting, and to provide Mr. Hilkevitch with details of the case, to include our subjective view of the veracity of the reports, and the apparent credibility of the witnesses. In the final analysis, once we were satisfied that the Chicago Tribune was interested in following up on the case, we contacted eyewitnesses, to request that they contact Mr. Hilkevitch directly, if they were willing to do so.



[edit on 8-1-2007 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Again to be fair, here is what is posted on NUFORC's site , or Davenport's side of the story.

I could be wrong but I assume a reporter wouldn't put something in quotes unless they had some way to back it up.

Besides, this statement alone by Davenport which is also from his web site suggests an irrational bias IMO...


DECEMBER 15, 2006 UPDATE: NUFORC has an unconfirmed report from a journalist investigating the O'Hare Airport incident of Nov. 7 (see full details lower on page) that the FAA and the airline involved have declared that the incident did not occur. We strongly suspect a cover-up may be starting to form.

In my book that isn't the way to win friends and influence people. I mean think about it… if you’re a witness and a team player employed by United or the FAA and you’re not exactly sure what you saw, would you want to come forward now and possibly inadvertently advance this guy’s agenda and bite the hand that feeds you?

[typos]

[edit on 9-1-2007 by Saviour Of The Real]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
I could be wrong but I assume a reporter wouldn't put something in quotes unless they had some way to back it up.


Shouldn't be something we should be guessing at then should it?



Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
Besides, this statement alone by Davenport which is also from his web site suggests an irrational bias IMO...


DECEMBER 15, 2006 UPDATE: NUFORC has an unconfirmed report from a journalist investigating the O'Hare Airport incident of Nov. 7 (see full details lower on page) that the FAA and the airline involved have declared that the incident did not occur. We strongly suspect a cover-up may be starting to form.


Well , Jon Hilkevitch confirmed the suspicious actions of the FAA independently of Davenport.




Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
In my book that isn't the way to win friends and influence people. I mean think about it… if you’re a witness and a team player employed by United or the FAA and you’re not exactly sure what you saw, would you want to come forward now and possibly inadvertently advance this guy’s agenda and bite the hand that feeds you?


I think your thinking about this from a biased POV.

I've seen a UFO , personally faced the dilemma of reporting the UFO or not , and your idea that these people came forward to further Davenport's "agenda" offends me!

In fact should anyone attempt to report a UFO in the U.S. to the Air Force they would be referred to NUFORC!









[edit on 9-1-2007 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 01:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
I've seen a UFO , personally faced the dilemma of reporting the UFO or not , and your idea that these people came forward to further Davenport's "agenda" offends me!

I'm sorry if there's been a misunderstanding and I failed to make my point clear but I was referring to those dozen or so other witnesses who reportedly may have also seen it and HAVE NOT come forward (gone on record) and a possible reason why.



In fact should anyone attempt to report a UFO in the U.S. to the Air Force they would be referred to NUFORC!

All the more reason why making statements like that is IMO doing a great disservice to the subject, especially without knowing the facts. Like I said IMO it’s irresponsible at best.

Is it possible the FAA didn’t see any reason to be overly concerned about it when it happened? Are their valid business reasons for United encouraging their employees not to talk about it? IMO things like that need to be taken into account and looked into further before jumping to nefarious conclusions... it's called giving them the benefit of the doubt.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
I'm sorry if there's been a misunderstanding and I failed to make my point clear but I was referring to those dozen or so other witnesses who reportedly may have also seen it and HAVE NOT come forward (gone on record) and a possible reason why.


I'm not upset with you , just what your saying , when you did say something about supporting/advancing "Davenport's agenda" then IMO your POV was unfounded and IMO not correct.

An involuntary witness to something profound like a UFO must "choose" to either "act like nothing happened" or inform others about what they witnessed , often knowing they will be "dragged through the Mud" so to speak if they do come forward.

Also I can speak from personal experience that when you do "see a UFO" , at least my first thought was "OMG! This really IS the BIGGEST SECRET ON EARTH!!!"

In other words a true UFO "witness" shouldn't take too long to figure out that the Media , and just about everything they've ever heard about "UFOs" , is full of "HOT AIR" so to speak.

If you look at it from that , witness perspective , then IMO it's very courageous for these people to have come forward as an "anonymous" group as they have.

And I guarantee that at least IMO , if these 11-12 people were fired from United Airlines within the next Month that there would be no interest or public outcry about it!

In fact if they are "fired" or not may actually determine whether they publically come forward or not.



[edit on 9-1-2007 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Saviour Of The Real
Is it possible the FAA didn’t see any reason to be overly concerned about it when it happened?


yes. the faa doesnt care about ufos. they figure that if they just ignore the problem it will go away. that is why they no longer take the reports, and instead direct people to groups like nuforc.



Are their valid business reasons for United encouraging their employees not to talk about it?


yes. they think that having employees who have seen ufos will decrease their ticket sales, as nobody wants to fly an airline full of nutcases.....which probably isnt true, but it is their mentality. of course, these (airline management) are the same people who schedule the majority of a days flights into the major hubs at the same time every day, and then wonder why there are ground delays and airborne holding.....and try to blame it on the controllers.



posted on Jan, 9 2007 @ 09:01 PM
link   
i don't feel like hunting throught all this thread to see if there was pics or a video of this event.


Can anyone show me the pic or video if there is one?

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 01:05 AM
link   
we are still waiting for the supposed pics to be released.



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Also I can speak from personal experience that when you do "see a UFO" , at least my first thought was "OMG! This really IS the BIGGEST SECRET ON EARTH!!!"

In other words a true UFO "witness" shouldn't take too long to figure out that the Media , and just about everything they've ever heard about "UFOs" , is full of "HOT AIR" so to speak.



i guess i had the exact opposite reaction. ive seen a few "strange things" in the sky where one wouldnt expect them to be (not aware of any major airlines that have flights at 3am flying from north to south over central south dakota low in dense lowlying clouds but hey...) and i guess its simply becuase i assume we arent alone in the universe cuz my reaction was "eh, ufo" but thats just me lol



posted on Jan, 10 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cybernative

Originally posted by Order Out Of Chaos
It's not an ET craft.
It's a Russian advanced technology spy probe.
All, well all military developed countries, have access to this same technology, which is why this happens all over the world.It's just a new, secret, form of satellite spying.The cold-war never ended, it just wen't high-tech.



OMG not again...OLD subject !!!

[edit on 5-1-2007 by Cybernative]


Yes, and one you seem to refuse to accept, its like..... you're trying to convince yourself that aliens are visiting Earth.

PS, old subject, once covered subject, subject does not conform to your standards, etc etc, its all the same..... debate, discussion, not flame


It might well have been covered before, i did not see my comments phrase covered anywhere else here, and im sure others havn't either.

Have a good day.



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join