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: 9
99
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 07:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by xEphon
I anxiously wait for the picture. Hopefully the person who took it isn't saving it so they can haggle a deal. With our luck some coverup agency will come along, outbid everyone, and place the picture in a nice manilla folder labeled Ohare 2006. That would suck =]


That photo will never come or any movies via cell phone for that matter because those who were there have been told in no uncertain terms that releasing such information to the public means their very livelihood will be jeopardized and I'm talking about those employees of the airport and those company's who are a part of the whole operation. Quite frankly, I can't blame those who are not talking and are withholding their cellphone photo's or movies as I'm sure I would be doing the same under similar circumstances.




posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I find it interesting that the majority of news media has reported the same "script". For one example, take Clear Channel, how many stations do they control.
I know for a fact that my local station (wetm channel 18, Elmira) has to send their stories to Syracuse for approval.
I believe they exist. In talks around the workplace, I have found that there is a huge majority that feel the same. Some have told me sightings that they have told nobody.
They only way to know for sure would be for the people to put the pressure on the governments.
We are an informed people. We can spot disinfo. When we do, we are ridiculed by folks that strongly believe in an ancient novel (edited by a pagan, baptised on his deathbed.) and those who watch way too much television.
My one question to anyone who does not believe that we are not alone and are being visited by others is....Prove it. I want video, pictures and any other proof you have to prove that "they" do not exist.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:21 PM
link   
Ummm...you can't prove a negative.

But that's ok, because as far as absolute, conclusive, proof stands, the score is still 0-0


But I do think existence is putting together something of a scoring drive



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I am not in Chicago, but, today, just before sunset I noticed that the sky was unusual. Then appeared a streak of white. I watched it thinking it was one of those sky writing planes. However, what it did was propel the clouds (massive grouping), as if it were some sort of rudder, forward moving the grouping from west to North East as if it were relocating. This was strange because the streak was tiny in comparison to the groups of clouds. Also present were three holes that looked as though something was above, but, could not be seen.

Any thoughts on what this could be.

I have seen what I thought were satelites (intelligently manned craft) and I can not say if they are government projects or UFO's. Would our government allow UFO's to roam our skies?



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
The latest story on the MSNBC website states that a photo was taken but the witness is concerned for his job. Personally I think that is BS because he/she could stand to make a boatload of money for that photo and then they can take that job and shove it.

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...



One of the airport witnesses did take a photo of the phenomenon, but is reluctant to make it public out of concern for his job, Davenport said. "So far, over almost two months, we've been unable to get that," he said.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:51 PM
link   
A very good interview on the Glenn Beck show tonite on CNN Headline News channel. The transcript should be on the CNN website by tomorrow.

Glenn Beck on CNN



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by eaglewingz
Ummm...you can't prove a negative.

But that's ok, because as far as absolute, conclusive, proof stands, the score is still 0-0


But I do think existence is putting together something of a scoring drive


I love your last part.

I can prove a negative. 1-2=-1. Simple. I agree with you on "absolute, conclusive, proof stands, the score is still 0-0" But proof to the other side sits the same way....a defensive stalemate until someone scores.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:12 PM
link   
I bet there were some pictures taken that day. However, there's such a stigma attached to the subject of ufos that they may be reluctant to come forward. I know if it was me, I might keep it to myself, or show it to some family members.

But I'd think twice about releasing it to the media and potentially drawing unwanted attention to myself. We've seen what happens to people who come forward with extraordinary pictures. Maybe if Davenport put forth a promise that any submitters of such photos would have their anonymity protected, we might get some. But then it would be hard to prove their authenticity.



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Photographs of the UFO would really make the FAA look bad.


Firstly, the have already been caught lying about the incident. They said "nothing happened that day", but when the Chicago Tribune filed a FOI Act Request suddenly they changed their story to "oh yeah it was weather phenemona"

Now if a photograph is released, it just makes them look even worse. I don't think this story alone will ever ( unless the photograph is uber quality ) blow the lid off the entire UFO & alien coverup, but it is really helping the water boil.

[edit on 3-1-2007 by ZoooMer]



posted on Jan, 3 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
The Feds "weather" excuse reminds me of that line from Men in Black, after Agent J wipes a woman's memory with his memory eraser gadget:



"All right, Beatrice, there was no alien. The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus."





posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Im sorry. This might be the most publicized UFO event in history (next to Roswell and DC) and people are afraid to release a photo of it? Cmon. . if any time was the RIGHT time to release the only photo captured, now would be it. The person who came forward would be on every major network news show and morning shows on TV showing the photo and telling what not only they saw, but what many people that day saw.

I think we are beyond a mass halucinaion at this point. You'd be in Lazar territory where you'd be so famous and talked about for what you captured, that the gov't would HAVE to leave you alone for fear of creating even more suspicion of govt coverup.

I know if I had it, I'd risk my life to make it public.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 02:02 AM
link   
An interesting comment posted on MSNBC...

cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...


Here's another message from a different mailbox:

---

Davenport may have "shot you down," but he sure missed a key fact: atmospheric phenomena tend not to stay in the same place. A vortex formed over a runway could certainly drift over terminal gates after being formed. That idea doesn't fit into his pre-conceived notion of what went on, so he ignored it.

When someone like this starts writing things like

"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."

I start to think that the guy is drawing his curve and then plotting his points, as we used to say in Physics 101. Since he presupposes that UFOs (technically, "a flying thing that I can't identify") are necessarily alien spacecraft, he leaps to the conclusion that a cover-up must be occurring when things don't pan out. Since he already "knows" what's going on, the lack of evidence is just a cover-up. It's sad, really.

Another interesting point:

"One of the airport witnesses did take a photo of the phenomenon, but is reluctant to make it public out of concern for his job, Davenport said. 'So far, over almost two months, we've been unable to get that,' he said."

Alternative explanation: Witness reviews photo and realizes that it doesn't look like a flying device at all, and demurs instead of facing public embarrassment. Honestly, which is the more likely explanation? Occam's Razor (and General Relativity) suggest that there was no vehicle hovering over the gates, and that a group of people saw what they were told to see, or wanted to see. ("Hey Chet, look! It's a UFO!")

Despite the fact that his site declaims that he's after "objective" data, the man's an obvious partisan. There's never been a single shred of data to support the concept that extraterrestrial spacecraft are visiting the Earth, and lots of empirical data to suggest that they can't and aren't. In an age where camera-enabled mobile phones are practically ubiquitous, his site features almost nothing but crude hand-drawings and "depictions" (doctored photos) of events. What undoctored photographs there are turn out invariably to be out of focus...or strangely out of focus only where the purported "spaceships" are, even when taken by "professional photographers." I find that very suspicious.

I'm a huge fan of science fiction. I majored in computer science and minored in physics. I believe that life exists on other planets elsewhere in our own galaxy, and that some of it may even be intelligent as we define that term. I also believe that the speed of light represents an insuperable barrier which renders the scenario of constant visits from intelligent space travelers highly unlikely. Not impossible, mind you, but so unlikely as make the probability virtually zero during our lifetimes.

When I was five years old, I got up in the middle of the night to use the bathroom. I walked down the hallway, and turned into the bathroom, where I saw a snake on the floor. I started to panic. I couldn't go into the bathroom because of the snake, and I couldn't NOT go into the bathroom, because my bladder was very full. I finally ran to my mother's room and told her about the snake in the bathroom. She walked me back down the hallway and turned on the bathroom light. There was no snake. What I had seen was a curving shadow cast on the floor by something very close to the night light. Yet I knew there was a snake there. I acted upon that knowledge, even though I didn't bother to check for evidence beyond that first observation. I could have turned on the light, naturally, but I was convinced I didn't have to because I already knew there was a snake on the floor. I required nothing more than the conviction of a snake present to go into a panic.

In a similar fashion (but without the panic), Mr. Davenport is seeing snakes where there aren't any. Someone needs to turn the light on for him.

-- J. Brook Monroe

Caveat Emptor



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 04:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by amongus
Im sorry. This might be the most publicized UFO event in history (next to Roswell and DC) and people are afraid to release a photo of it? Cmon. . if any time was the RIGHT time to release the only photo captured, now would be it. The person who came forward would be on every major network news show and morning shows on TV showing the photo and telling what not only they saw, but what many people that day saw.



if they did they would be putting themselves at risk, and i can imagin that they govt. may secretly put pressure on that person to come forward and say that its a fake.


Originally posted by amongus

I think we are beyond a mass halucinaion at this point. You'd be in Lazar territory where you'd be so famous and talked about for what you captured, that the gov't would HAVE to leave you alone for fear of creating even more suspicion of govt coverup.

I know if I had it, I'd risk my life to make it public.


sure is



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scramjet76
*buzzer sounds*
Hmm not quite. There are documented UFO cases where an object has landed on railroad ties. The crumbling strength of various woods is well known. Using this and an estimate of the objects physical dimensions combined with a little math, has determined that UFOs have a lot of mass and are nearly the density of a submarine.


Mass of a submarine ? Wow, that's several thousand tons.

I've read about some small UFO landings and the weight was estimated at a few tons. Do you have an more information about this railroad tie landing ? Thanks.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Well folks....

This one made the National News... Fox News just now ran a story on the sighting!!!!

They also stated that without some pictures or video, they could not make any conclusions... But at least this is getting national coverage...

Semper


I read the article today in the local paper here down in Perth, Western Australia.

So in fact it is now international. However, as you would expect, it was not given any credibility, and the ended the article with the quote about travelling 7 million light years just to have to go home when the airport was full.

Bu Im intrigued... very intrigued...



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 07:24 AM
link   
For all the people bemoaning the fact that all the TV/radio coverage seems 'scripted' (all saying almost exactly the same thing) you need to understand how news works. When a story is picked up by the wire services (Reuters/A.P.) that text is transmitted to all news outlets --- they all get exactly the same copy. Each station's news director decides what stories they'll run (some combination of locally reported and wire services). For the latter, all they have is the copy that comes over the wire. Except for maybe layering-on some commentary that's all they have. Why re-write the story when it's all right there for you. Nothing sinister. Just the way the news biz works.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   
I don't think this has been posted yet so I was reading a yahoo news story on the O'hare ufo and they had this picture next to it. Is that supposed to be the ufo?

Edit: I read it was during the day and didn't have lights so what is the picture of?

[edit on 4-1-2007 by codylawyer99]



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
i think it's just a shot of the chicago nightline with aircraft being lined up for approach.....they probably chose it because the way the aircraft were lined up looked "ufoish."

typical media bullcrap.



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
I lstened to the Peter Davenport interview from Rense.com and he claims to have video from a source about 10 miles away that shows "something" on it in the vicinty of O'Hare. I would think that video shot from that distance would be inconclusive but it may corroborate the event as a whole and the time it happened



posted on Jan, 4 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   
PLEASE VIEW ALL PICTURES AT LINK VERY IMPORTANT

earthfiles.com...




Grey Aerial Disk Reported by Chicago O'Hare
United Airlines Pilots and Mechanics

© 2006 by Linda Moulton Howe

" I know that what I saw and what a lot of other people saw stood out
very clearly, and it definitely was not an (Earth) aircraft."
- United Airlines mechanic about Nov. 7, 2006, sighting



January 2, 2007 Chicago, Illinois - Reporter Jon Hilkevitch at the Chicago Tribune, reported yesterday: "A flying saucerlike object hovered low over O'Hare International Airport (above United Airlines Concourse Gate C17) for several minutes before bolting through thick clouds with such intense energy that it left an eerie hole in overcast skies, said some United Airlines employees who observed the phenomenon."

The date was nearly two months ago on November 7, 2006. The time was about 4:30 p.m. local time before sunset. A dozen eyewitnesses working for United Airlines, ranging from a manager to pilots to mechanics, all said the aerial object was dark gray metallic in color, clearly disk-shaped, made no sound, had no glowing lights, and remained motionless above Gate C17 for several minutes. Some witnesses said it looked like the disc was spinning. One United mechanic said, "I know that what I saw and what a lot of other people saw stood out very clearly, and it definitely was not an (Earth) aircraft."

But no media coverage about this event surfaced until after the Chicago Tribune filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for facts.

Jon Hilkevitch reported from his interviews with United employees who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

"Like United Airlines, the FAA originally told the Tribune that it had no information on the alleged UFO sighting. But the federal agency quickly reversed its position after the newspaper filed a Freedom of Information Act request. ...A United spokeswoman said there is no record of the UFO report. She said United officials do not recall discussion of any such incident.

"'There's nothing in the duty manager log, which is used to report unusual incidents,' said United spokeswoman Megan McCarthy. 'I checked around. There's no record of anything.'

"The pilots of the United plane being directed back from Gate C17 also were notified by United personnel of the sighting, and one of the pilots reportedly opened a windscreen in the cockpit to get a better view of the object estimated to be hovering 1,500 feet above the ground. The object was seen to suddenly accelerate straight up through the solid overcast skies, which the FAA reported had 1,900-foot cloud ceilings at the time.

"'It was like somebody punched a hole in the sky,' said one United employee. Witnesses said they had a hard time visually tracking the object as it streaked through the dense clouds, rising straight upward. It left behind an open hole of clear air in the cloud layer, the witnesses said, adding that the hole disappeared within a few minutes."

Regardless of the United and FAA denials, Hilkevitch reported that "some of the dozen United employees who saw the hovering disc said they were interviewed by United officials and instructed to write reports and draw pictures of what they observed, and that they were advised by United officials to refrain from speaking about what they saw."



Cloud Hole Mystery

The Chicago O'Hare sighting raises a question about the hole-punch cloud phenomenon reported and photographed occasionally. Are the cloud holes produced by rapidly moving discs from another world?


Mysterious cloud holes. Left: Stavely, Alberta, Canada.
Middle: Derbyshire, England. Right: Nashville, Tennessee.


January 12, 2004, hole punch cloud over Mobile, Alabama.
Image © 2004 by Joel Knain.

NASA reported about the Alabama hole punch cloud: "Such a hole, likely hundreds of meters across, was photographed from a driveway near Mobile, Alabama. Very unusual to see, hole-punch clouds like this are still the topic of meteorological speculation. A leading hypothesis holds that the hole-punch cloud is caused by falling ice-crystals. The ice-crystals could originate in a higher cloud or be facilitated by a passing airplane exhaust. If the air has just the right temperature and moisture content, the falling crystals will absorb water from the air and grow. For this to happen, the water must be so cold that all it needs is a surface to freeze on. The moisture lost from the air increases the evaporation rate from the cloud water droplets so they dissipate to form the hole. The now heavier ice crystals continue to fall and form the more tenuous wispy cloud-like virga seen inside and just below the hole. Water and ice from the virga evaporates before they reach the ground."



Was It Atmospheric Illusion?

FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth I. Cory said, "Our theory on this is that it was a weather phenomenon. 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."



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join