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: 99
99
<< 96  97  98    100  101  102 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy

but it's funny...a picture that was not edited by some software and has no tags in the code is claimed to be a hoax? lame

reverse logic...


What You don't know how to access the code and remove tags and add any text you want? Sheesh thats Photo Editing 101





posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jbird
snafu7700-

Thanks for jumpin' in, with the translation.


Can I ask, are you a pilot or controller?

Do you know anyone who might translate 'plan weird' ?


[edit on 23-2-2007 by Jbird]


i'm a controller in a radar facility, and i'll ask around to see if i can find that out.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jbird

I throw in a WATS, for a brief description in layman's terms of what
happened that day.( according to the log, of course)


as i've told springer in the past, i dont work anywhere near ohare, so i can only go by what the log says, and it's pretty straight forward....united reported an object, the tower says they didnt see it, a quality assurance review was performed as per regulations to ensure that said object wasnt a safety factor, and nothing else about the incident is mentioned.



Especially, your thoughts on the 'clipping' incident, runway changes etc., and anything else , that seems unusual, from a normal days log.


none of that seems out of the ordinary.....clipping incidents happen more often than you think. it's a hazard to operating so many aircraft in such a confined space. the runway changes are a normal everyday occurance....you have to use the runway that is most closely aligned to the wind....tail wind is a bad thing for most big airliners.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jbird
Also , would there be anything in the log,
that would point to the traffic being put in a holding pattern,
for the supposed 10 minutes, or so, that Eyewitness estimated?

Thanks


not that i can tell....but considering their volume of traffic and the bad weather conditions that day, i'm sure they were in the hold multiple times. the part where they mention multiple go-arounds is a pretty good indicator of that. you have to understand that the radar approach control would be holding the aircraft, not the tower, so it would be reflected on the approach control logs.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel

From your take on the log, does it mean that planes were being landed from the east onto the 27 runways? Which direction would the takeoffs be? East to West also?

Great work.


27 would actually be a westerly operation. the runways are identified according to their magnetic heading....27 would be pointing due west on a 270 heading, so yes, they were operating a westerly operation at the time of the incident.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:51 AM
link   


I am a meteorologist and I did an analysis of the cloud deck through which the object allegedly "punched a hole." I obtained satellite data of cloud top temperatures (at considerable expensive) and found that the cloud layer was over 7,000 feet thick. My original estimate was about 2,000 feet (without the satellite data). I don't know of any process that would break a hole in a cloud deck as quickly as this object apparently did.

Didn't the witnesses said that they could see blue skies through the hole?

To see it through a 7,000 feet hole they would need to be almost under the hole, I think.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 08:51 AM
link   
after talking to other guys who have worked in large towers, i still dont know exactly what configuration is involved with plan "wierd", but it is definitely a specific setup for landing and departing traffic. for instance, landing on the parallels, and departing on a crossing runway.

springer: what else did you want me to translate for you?



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 09:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jbird
Also , would there be anything in the log,
that would point to the traffic being put in a holding pattern,
for the supposed 10 minutes, or so, that Eyewitness estimated?

Thanks

I don't know about the log, but I have made a compilation of data published by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. In these you can see the delay in the arrivals and in the departures.

Arrivals
Departures



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Hi all,

I'm totally new to ATS. Fascinating thread here! Congrats to everybody who has contributed some amazing insights. Please forgive me if I state the obvious, or previously mentioned things. Unfortunately I don't have the time to sift through all the pages ...

Is there any evidence that this wasn't an advanced man-made UFO over O'Hare? All the single components of the craft, stealth technology & advanced propulsion, are current technologies that are all well understood since the '60s. Why does it come as a surprise that a few billion dollars in R&D at a government facility wouldn't produce something that was seen at O'Hare?

Also, probably totally unrelated but similar:

www.youtube.com...

The "waterdrop" at the end of the video reminds me of the photo of O'Hare. Does anybody know if that video was faked?

Sincerely,

swatcher



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   
snafu' - Greatly appreciated!

Thanks for the response and your take on the log.
Very helpful for this laymen.

A few follow-ups , if you don't mind.


originally posted by snafu7700
you have to understand that the radar approach control would be holding the aircraft, not the tower,

Ahh, ok. So approach control would be in separate rooms or buildings, or just a separate 'section' in the tower?


....clipping incidents happen more often than you think. it's a hazard to operating so many aircraft in such a confined space.

Wow, that is surprising!
Just to be clear, are we talking 'clipping' on the tarmac, in the air, or both?

In fact, firstly, I guess I should establish if our definition of 'clipping' is synonymous. Are we talking 'physical' contact?

Is this, common knowledge, only in the aviation field, or am I just greatly uniformed?


i still dont know exactly what configuration is involved with plan "wierd", but it is definitely a specific setup for landing and departing traffic.

That seems to remove at least part, of the mystery.

thanks again snafu'


Oh yea, (I'm sure this wasn't your incentive) , but as promised-
You have voted snafu7700 for the Way Above Top Secret award.


[edit on 24-2-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by swatcher
Hi all,
I'm totally new to ATS.

Why does it come as a surprise that a few billion dollars in R&D at a government facility wouldn't produce something that was seen at O'Hare?


Welcome to ATS , swatcher-


(Check out the 'ATS Handbook' link in my sig.
for some helpful info about the site)

I don't think the surprise is whether it might be 'ours', but,
why, if it is, are they 'flying' it independently,
in a heavy traffic area.

And, if it's not 'ours'.....well, that doesn't leave many options.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jbird

Originally posted by swatcher
Hi all,
I'm totally new to ATS.

Why does it come as a surprise that a few billion dollars in R&D at a government facility wouldn't produce something that was seen at O'Hare?


Welcome to ATS , swatcher-


(Check out the 'ATS Handbook' link in my sig.
for some helpful info about the site)

I don't think the surprise is whether it might be 'ours', but,
why, if it is, are they 'flying' it independently,
in a heavy traffic area.

And, if it's not 'ours'.....well, that doesn't leave many options.



Thanks for the warm welcome!

If I had a "military" craft that was supposed to be stealth to radar and the naked eye, I would want to test it under rigorous "real world" conditions ... Dozens of trained airline pilots and tower radar at a busy airport would be a good starting point.

I think it was simply a training sortie gone bad.

Sincerely,

swatcher



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
I was interested to see that the initial radar analysis from William Puckett at ufosnw showed nothing specific. Snafu had commented earlier that he did not think anything would be able to be observed because of the "cone of silence".

I emailed Mr. Puckett to ask him if he thought this was the case and this is what he had to say. Also, what is the difference between an aviation radar and the FAA radar?


Brenda:
Thanks for posting my response on the message board of ATS. I am not familiar with the term of "cone of silence" as it relates to aviation radar, but I do know that this type of object is not conducive to painting a radar return. The reasons are that the object was observed to be a disk shaped object which would have a small radar reflective "cross sectional" area. Also the object was hovering for several minutes. FAA radar has a "moving target indicator" meaning that it will only pick up targets that are moving. The reason for this is obvious because otherwise the radar would pick up buildings and other stationary objects resulting in "clutter" that would obscure aircraft. However, I am not finished analyzing the radar data yet. Witnesses said that the object shot through the clouds after hovering. There is a possibility that the radar may have picked up a blip after the object moved. I will be posting any updates on my web site.

Thanks for your interest. You may post this response on your message board.

William Puckett
UFOs Northwest
P.O. Box 50246
Bellevue, WA 98015-0246



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
THANKS for the great work. I am going to put your translation in the Discovery documentary.
You'll notice you have 50,000 more ATS points and I threw in a few BTS and PTS for good measure.


swatcher: One of the possibilities I hold in high regard is exactly what you state here, a test bed being flown around that went haywire.

I find it nearly impossible to believe they would purposely fly this over O'Hare you don't need the risk of discovery or HORRID accident just to get lots of traffic, radar and trained pilots to help you test.

We have several remote airfields with better radar than O'Hare has and an airforce full of jets and trained pilots.


That being said, WHAT technology do we have that blast a hole in 7,000 foot thick cloud cover in less than a second?!
That's a heck of a technology in and of itself that many experts (Doctors of Physics, ultra senior Intelligence Officers, etc...) I have discussed this with flatly deny we have.

Obviously we don't know what we don't know but the eyewitness testimony of this craft is astounding.

WELCOME TO AboveTopSecret.com by the way!


Springer...



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:18 PM
link   
'Training sortie gone bad' ?
or
'test bed being flown around that went haywire' ?


I'd tend to think they would have all glitches tested out before,
they brought it anywhere near a highly congested area.

Plus it seemed in complete control while it was in sight, no?

Unless we're talking dimensional shifting technology or some similar sci-fi type testing , I'm leaning toward a purposeful exhibition / demonstration.

Maybe the technology is 'fleshed' out to the point of supreme confidence, making this ,in their mind, a safe maneuver?

Or maybe it's not ours?



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 06:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher777

... FAA radar has a "moving target indicator" meaning that it will only pick up targets that are moving. The reason for this is obvious because otherwise the radar would pick up buildings and other stationary objects...

William Puckett
UFOs Northwest



snafu - is this your understanding ?

And thanks again, for the updates, Watcher'


Still, wouldn't it show up as it arrived or departed?

Which brings to mind, isn't it common to have more than only One radar antennea at an airport, ruling out blind spots?

[edit on 24-2-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP


I am a meteorologist and I did an analysis of the cloud deck through which the object allegedly "punched a hole." I obtained satellite data of cloud top temperatures (at considerable expensive) and found that the cloud layer was over 7,000 feet thick. My original estimate was about 2,000 feet (without the satellite data). I don't know of any process that would break a hole in a cloud deck as quickly as this object apparently did.

Didn't the witnesses said that they could see blue skies through the hole?

To see it through a 7,000 feet hole they would need to be almost under the hole, I think.



I find this very curious. The witnesses at O'Hare stated that they saw the UFO shoot up and punch a hole in the clouds through which blue sky could be seen.

The witness (who taxis planes around the airport) that appeared on Jeff Rense show along with Peter Davenport (nuforc.com) stated that the size of the hole was about as wide as the UFO - which was estimated to be 25-30 ft in diameter.

OK, let's think about this. The metereologist found that the cloud layer that day at O'Hare was 7000 ft thick, and the bottom of the cloud layer was around 1900 ft above ground level.

So we're talking 7000 + 1900 = 8900 ft from ground to top of cloud layer to see the blue sky. Now, assuming the hole was 30 ft wide all the way up to the top, can one reasonable see a 30 ft hole almost 2 miles away?? (two miles is 10,560 ft)

The circular hole of blue sky would appear to be almost as small as a pin prick. Something doesn't quite add up here.



posted on Feb, 24 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Didn't the employee near the terminal state 'blue sky'? A person who was close to directly under the object.

This is from one of early posts by "Eyewitness".


I did see it leave. It didn't go quite straight up, and from my angle I couldn't see blue sky at the top of the hole... but it surely did leave a hole, and it went from no movement to incredible speed in a split second... no noticeable acceleration, just gone.


From her angle, blue sky was not seen.



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
That being said, WHAT technology do we have that blast a hole in 7,000 foot thick cloud cover in less than a second?!
That's a heck of a technology in and of itself that many experts (Doctors of Physics, ultra senior Intelligence Officers, etc...) I have discussed this with flatly deny we have.



7000 feet per second translates to over 25,000 MPH, or, better than Mach 32...In les than 1 second!

Although the math is beyond me, I'm sure some one on this board could calculate:


The g-force experienced by an object accelerating from 0 to Mach 32 in les than 1 second, and,

The volume of air that likely would be diplaced by a 20-30 foot disc-shaped object accelerating at that speed. (and yet no one reported a "sonic boom", or any sound at all, upon the object's departure!).


Could the lack of a sonic boom be because the object maintained a "mostly vertical" trajectory?



posted on Feb, 25 2007 @ 06:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jbird

Ahh, ok. So approach control would be in separate rooms or buildings, or just a separate 'section' in the tower?


depends on the approach control. over the last decade or so, the faa has been taking the approach controls that were located in the base of large towers and moving them to a seperate facility. for instance, ohare tracon (terminal radar approach control) is now located in a seperate building in Elgin, Illinois. some of the smaller airports with combined approach controls still have them in the main building at the base of the tower, but the faa is moving towards combining all of those smaller tracons into larger tracons.

long story short, ohare tracon is in a different building and any holding of aircraft would be reflected on their logs.



Wow, that is surprising!
Just to be clear, are we talking 'clipping' on the tarmac, in the air, or both?


on the tarmac. in the air would be catagorized as a "midair", and the media would be all over it, like the incident that happened in south america last year between the american corporate jet and a south american airliner.



In fact, firstly, I guess I should establish if our definition of 'clipping' is synonymous. Are we talking 'physical' contact?


yes, clipping is actual contact on the ground. if you search the net, you'll find quite a few instances of this happening.....usually the only ones that make the news involve aircraft with passengers on board. since we didnt hear anything further about the one on this log, i would guess that he was probably ferrying the aircraft to another part of the field.



Is this, common knowledge, only in the aviation field, or am I just greatly uniformed?


if it doesnt involve passengers, it doesnt make the news, so it probably isnt really common knowledge.



Oh yea, (I'm sure this wasn't your incentive) , but as promised-
You have voted snafu7700 for the Way Above Top Secret award.


well thank you sir....just trying to help you guys understand.


[edit on 2/25/07 by snafu7700]



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 96  97  98    100  101  102 >>

log in

join