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: 18
99
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:12 PM
link   
I don't see what the problem is with his discussing this matter anywhere. I'm sure he didn't sign a contract when he was hired, or later, that bound him to silence. (could be wrong of course). In other words, I don't think the company has any support for termination due to discussing one's personal observations of the sky!.

If you feel like your job is in danger because you discuss your experience here, then I think there is a bigger, scarier problem. I worked on the tarmac for a few years, in a class c airport. I worked for an FBO, not an airline, mind you—and if I saw what you claim to have seen, and my superiors made me feel that my job was on the line for even talking about it, I would have gave them a few choice words, took off my overalls, and told them I expected my last check in the mail. If I had a family, I would've been on the job search immediately.

We're talking about an airline. Not a governmental body.




posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by nextguyinline
If you feel like your job is in danger because you discuss your experience here, then I think there is a bigger, scarier problem. I worked on the tarmac for a few years, in a class c airport. I worked for an FBO, not an airline, mind you—and if I saw what you claim to have seen, and my superiors made me feel that my job was on the line for even talking about it, I would have gave them a few choice words, took off my overalls, and told them I expected my last check in the mail. If I had a family, I would've been on the job search immediately.

We're talking about an airline. Not a governmental body.



How about getting clearance for a similar job positions or maybe even references?

So sir where did you work last and why did you leave or why did you get fired?

"I saw a UFO and reported it"

That would go over well appyly for or at your new job for sure.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by Realtruth]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
not to mention some people enjoy their jobs enough to not want to lose them. crazy, right!? or just even they dont want to disrupt their everyday life for others curiousity.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
That's my point. I don't think he can be fired for it. If he can, or would be, then there is a larger, scarier problem.

You seem to think that I think he should talk, and is being silly, not talking. I acknowledge his potential fears, and the rest of yours as well. I was making a statement to the situation, not a judgment of his actions.


ORB

posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 05:53 PM
link   
Personally. I think the airline should give them all service awards and a raise for performance above and beyond their responsibilities in pointing out possible safety hazards and showing a broad situational awareness in these times of heightened security. Good job guys!
If there's a damned UFO up there, EVERYBODY should know about it, simple as that.
What's this BS about losing a contract because of this incident? So we need to hide something of this magnitude from the world? Cmon! what kind of Ohare-brained thinking is this?
Weather phenomena..yeah right. Anyone who comes up with these stupid explanations should have THEIR heads examined, yet this is supposed to be the "official" explanation thats supposed to make everyone feel better. Any explanation even worthy of considering should be at least scientifically proven to be possible or have a precedent. Dont even insult our intelligence with that balony. Reality rules, cloud nine's not rainin on my parade...



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:35 PM
link   
This looks like a good spot for a Fair Skeptic to jump in.

So Orb- you're willing to dismiss out of hand a possible explanation just because it was issued by some "official"? Ever think that person may just be reading a statement by some "authority"? And that maybe that person may have a bit more knowledge about these sort of things than the average "joe"?

Radar operators get fooled by inversion layers. There are types of plasmas that seem to mimic fantastic flight characteristics.

We should consider any and all possibilities.
Deny tunnel vision.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 07:59 PM
link   
I agree with most of what nextguyinline and ORB have said.


Originally posted by nextguyinline
If you feel like your job is in danger because you discuss your experience here, then I think there is a bigger, scarier problem.

Indeed.

And what's worse is that this has become some sort of unwritten 'law'. Specially for government workers.



Originally posted by Damocles
a man/woman with a family has a lot to lose and we shouldnt forget that. this incident has gotten probably as much exposure as its going to so him coming forward by name to tell a story that the media is already starting to consider "old news" is pretty much occupational suicide for him.

I understand that he, or anyone else involved, would have alot of lose.
So does humanity and and free speech if we allow something that everyone knows it's happening and keeps getting pushed under the rug.

I can understand that not everyone believes in UFOs and aliens, but in my opinion this case doesn't have anything to do with you believing or not in UFOs and aliens.

First of all, it's a public security issue - there was a breech in the airspace of the airport.
Second, it's a matter of demanding answers and accountability to the federal agency that regulates the civilian airspace.

People flying put their lives on the hands of the FAA everytime they are in a plane, they deserve to know what hazards could be out there.

It's FAA's job to inform and explain this situations. They have not.
They have lied, as they've changed their story over and over.

People want to know what was really out there, and surely the interest in the story is proof of that, and it's their job, why isn't there an investigation going on?

Obviously, the FAA or any other agency isn't going to look into it, as clearly they would rather lie than have to investigate and give us any answers.

So if they aren't going to do it, people are going to have to pressure them until they do a serious and scientific investigation.

What better time than now, to apply this pressure, that there's witnesses (and credible ones) and that the public opinion is interested in the matter?

Of course I don't expect that rampagentX will come out alone publicly talking about this.

From the accounts and reports, they were about 10-15 people who witnessed this (probably more), from mechanics to pilots to FAA radar operators.

Gather up a few of these people, go publicly saying you are worried about public safety and let's take it from there.
Build a case that would first of all, appeal to people's sense of safety, which in these post 911 times people can easily relate and get interested in, and let's see where this leads to.

Without a serious investigation we won't go anywhere. Doesn't matter if it was alien or military craft.

edit: spelling

[edit on 15-1-2007 by danx]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   


We should consider any and all possibilities.
Deny tunnel vision.


Agreed, but so far, the authorities in question have not offered up any particular type of "weather phenomenon" that fits the criteria of the sighting as stated by several trained witnesses. Indeed, this is likely due to no such phenomenon existing.

Temperature inversions can allegedly ghost on radar, but they aren't visual phenomena visible as a dark metallic disc that zooms straight up and punches a hole in the cloud layer....and so far, no specific weather phenomenon has been given as an example of such an observation...just a very generic answer which seems to imply no real investigation or attempt at one by said authorities.

As the "hole in the clouds" is one of the most startling issues of this case, as an authoritative body, I'd go this route, especially given the location an airport....
www.crh.noaa.gov...

However, this fails to explain the sighted craft reported, and the actions of said craft....

[edit on 15-1-2007 by Gazrok]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 08:18 PM
link   

It's FAA's job to inform and explain this situations.

Wrong. They're a regulatory agency. Their tasked with making sure the airlines follow the rules.
Next thing you know we'll be blaming the E-coli spinach fiasco on the FDA.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by cheepnis
Wrong. They're a regulatory agency. Their tasked with making sure the airlines follow the rules.
Next thing you know we'll be blaming the E-coli spinach fiasco on the FDA.


Does that invalidate my point that there should be an investigation?



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   

the sighting as stated by several trained witnesses.

Ok now here's a sticking point. These trained witnesses were trained to witness what?
Ah, I thought so. That would explain why I'm having such a difficult time vetting these folk.
None of these witnesses has responded to my personal inquiries as to their credentials.
They should be considered less than reliable.
(not even a scanned time card?)



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 08:33 PM
link   
The Mission Of The FAA

When in doubt...

FAA - Mission


Our Mission

Our mission is to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world.

Whether atmospheric phenomenon, mass airline worker hallucinations or Unidentified Flying Object, ignoring something like this would seem contrary to the mission of the FAA.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Does that invalidate my point that there should be an investigation?

Absolutely not. That's why I've undertaken an independent investigation to
determine the voracity of the witnesses.
Authentication and verification. That's the key.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   


Ok now here's a sticking point. These trained witnesses were trained to witness what?
Ah, I thought so.


Trained in estimating altitude and knowing what's in the skies above them...or at least more trained than the average joe...as they are simply seeing airborne objects on a regular and consistent basis.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by cheepnis
Absolutely not. That's why I've undertaken an independent investigation to determine the voracity of the witnesses.
Authentication and verification. That's the key.

Finally something we can agree on.

If you had read one my previous posts you will notice that I was (and still am) very skeptical about the testimonial and I'm not blindly believing rampangeX's testimonial.


Originally posted by danx
I don't think most people would need pictures to believe you, as long as there's proof you really work there and were there at the time.
At least that would be good enough for me.

Would that be a good starting point for you cheepnis? Establishing that rampagentX works where he says he does.

And after one moderator already confirmed he was submiting his posts from an IL connection (of course that proves nothing by itself), I asked rampagentX if he was willing to come out publicly.

I'm only debating what, in my opinion, should be done, obviously after establishing the witnesses and rampagentX in this case, is legit.

Never said otherwise cheepnis, nor have I said that I believe him.

[edit on 15-1-2007 by danx]



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 09:05 PM
link   

Whether atmospheric phenomenon, mass airline worker hallucinations or Unidentified Flying Object, ignoring something like this would seem contrary to the mission of the FAA.

They've hardly ignored it.
And if you'd bothered to dig a little deeper
www.faa.gov...

# Regulatory and Guidance Library

* The Regulatory & Guidance Library (RGL) is a set of searchable databases that contain regulatory, guidance, and aviation product information. The RGL contains certain Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) and Special Federal Aviation Regulations (SFAR) from 14 CFR in their current version as well as historical versions.

You'd see that the FAA is not an investigatory agency like the GAO.
There are strict guidelines they must adhere to. For example it's not the FAA that investigate plane crashes but the NTSB.
To assume that the FAA would initiate some sort of investigation into an incident that has little verifiable information and had little affect on the normal flow of aircraft.........ahhhhhhh



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by cheepnis
To assume that the FAA would initiate some sort of investigation into an incident that has little verifiable information and had little affect on the normal flow of aircraft.........ahhhhhhh


When dealing with thousands of lives a day - "little effect" just isn't good enough



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 09:15 PM
link   
Until (Unless) the witnesses come forward (even if only to researchers and hide their identities to the public), it's just that, a story. An intriguing one, and with folks who at least were believable enough by the AP to carry the story in the first place, but we're left right now with only the small narrative released thus far. Additionally, it seems like a fairly quick event, so likely not much more to glean from it, sadly...though I'd love to be wrong on that count.

Given the backlash that UFO reporting causes in the industry, we aren't likely to see them come public, though it would be nice to hear some more details, even if digitally hidden in a documentary, etc.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Trained in estimating altitude and knowing what's in the skies above them...or at least more trained than the average joe...as they are simply seeing airborne objects on a regular and consistent basis.

Visual brought on by this:
Baggage handlers class. "so lemme get this straight. while I'm busy crushin peoples undeclareds I should look up and be able to distinguish between the different types of not only planes but unknown weather phenomen?"



Would that be a good starting point for you cheepnis? Establishing that rampageX works where he says he does.

Yup. A pay stub or punched time card.
I've offered to vett anyone who wishes to come forward. No response.



posted on Jan, 15 2007 @ 09:33 PM
link   
ok so what, im wrong in understanding why he wouldnt want to come public? veiled threats are still that, threats and all im saying is that its understandable why someone IN that situation is reacting differently than someone believes THEY would were they in a similar situation. thats all

and i could be wrong on this but isnt the actual SECURITY of our airspace the realm of the airforce? haha try a foia with them and see how far it gets anyone (snicker).

i wish things were different. i really do, i wish we lived in an open society and there were no secrets and the govt could be trusted. sadly i know first hand this isnt the case and i also know that for some things there are very good reasons.

i dont have any reason to believe this is one of those reasons unless of course it WAS the airforce that was responsible for the "weather phenomenon" at o'hare. lol but if it was what a great mind job on foreign powers without being overt huh?



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join