O'Hare UFO skepticism

Can someone please clarify what's going on with this O'hare UFO stuff? I first heard about this case last month, but now that it's gotten all over the news, I'm noticing some red flags showing up. The press is saying there were multiple witnesses, but all we're hearing about is one report, from one ground crew member, in particular. If there really were "multiple witnesses", then where are they? They haven't been named.

Also, who saw the hole in clouds left by the UFO? Was it the same ground crew who says he saw it on the runway? The news reports don't seem to specify this.
These are the reasons I'm getting more and more skeptical about the whole thing. If more than one person saw the craft, then we should have written reports from each one of the witnesses. Unless, of course, it was actually ONLY ONE WITNESS, which I am now beginning to suspect may be the case.

Yes there wer multiple witnesses. Two ground employees saw the hole in the clouds. However only one person has been come out and been on the news filmed. Thats it. (that I know of)

Um... aren't we already talking about the O'Hare UFO sighting in another thread?

There are a few people in that other thread who are claiming that that sighting was a fake so it's not necessary to start up another thread to express the same opinion when others too are giving the same opinions in that other thread on this topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6-1-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Palasheea
Um... aren't we already talking about the O'Hare UFO sighting in another thread?

There are a few people in that other thread who are claiming that that sighting was a fake so it's not necessary to start up another thread to express the same opinion when others too are giving the same opinions in that other thread on this topic.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 6-1-2007 by Palasheea]

Yeah, I thought about posting this in the original thread, but then I decided there will be enough responses in this topic alone to justify a separate thread. The point is, we still haven't seen any specific, detailed reports from separate witnesses. This is important. Until that information comes out, I think we should be skeptical with regard to the multiple witness claim. Media hysteria can spread pretty quickly.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by Flatwoods]

Well I do agree that we can't rule out that maybe those were just disgrunted airport employee's who made those reports. Maybe they know that they are going to be laid off due to those current changes and mergers taking place in the airline industry now where they've got some issues with O'Hare because they will be losing a lot of benefits and maybe even those retirement plans they set up years ago when they first started working there. So yes, I agree with you that this could be a factor and maybe those same employee's want to make O'Hare the laughing stock of the world by saying that there were UFO's flying up over it and their control towers there did not even detect those craft on their radars...

[edit on 6-1-2007 by Palasheea]

Please understand, I am NOT trying to suggest that this case is a hoax. The point that I am trying to get across is this: if one witness claims that he saw a UFO, and that same witness also claims that his partner saw it, this does not count as a multiple witness sighting. The other witness must come forward and report the sighting himself. As of yet, I've only seen one report, from one witness.

Tell me if this is wrong.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by Flatwoods]

Flatwood, use common sense. Obviously no airport employee is going to go public by saying their real names and making reports to the local police dept. or to any online reporting site and say they saw a UFO flying around over their airport when their bosses are letting them know under no uncertain terms that they are not to go public with that information because such sightings that were undetected by their control towers there makes those control tower engineer's look incompetent where the airport itself looks unsafe because they are missing such potentially dangerous objects up there that could potentially collide with incoming and outgoing airliners...
These employees have family's to feed and their very livihood's jeapordized by making such reports like this using their real names. And it's my guess that most of them never even went that far. Silence is the rule of the day on events like this under such circumstances.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by Palasheea]

That's exactly what I'm trying to do, Palasheea...use common sense. The only good evidence for UFO phenomena, other than physical traces, are carefully and methodically documemented witness reports in which specific details are reported, i.e. time of day, shape and altitude of the craft, the angle in the sky at which it was seen, that sort of thing. These reports should be specific, and the identities of the witnesses should be verifiable. Now maybe this has been done, and maybe it hasn't, but whatever the case, this story hasn't been reported very well in the media.

Again, as far as I can tell, there appears to have been only one witness.

As far as I know, there were 2.
One is an employee of the airport who made that initial report back in Nov. on Davenport's site.
And the other one is a pilot who also saw that UFO who also talked to Davenport where they both went onto a radio show where that witness talked about what he saw. But he also did not give his real name... as far as I know.

[edit on 6-1-2007 by Palasheea]

If there were in fact two witnesses, and it involved the same UFO on the same day and at the same time, then that would be very significant. Two witnesses seeing the object from two different distances and angles could provide a wealth of information as to the size, altitude, and composition of the UFO.

Unfortunately, Peter Davenport doesn't have much info about the pilot on his website. It is absolutely crucial to specify whether or not the witness reports occurred on the same day, at the same time. The other night I listened to a radio show in which a UFO witness was interviewed with regard to the O'Hare sighting. Unfortunately, the witness was talking about an entirely different incident, that happened on a different night. Exactly what it had to do with the O'Hare case, I have no idea, but that's just an example of how the media outlets are mangling the facts of the case.