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 UFO Report Released

page: 2
35
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by lyingunderoath
Can't imagine the Stelth bomber/fighter flew low over O'Hare to get any point across...let alone something like this, but odds are against this.
Gigantic Phoenix triangle floating over so many, as well as the O'Hare event, just does not fit any mold our team would do for any reason...
We have the amazing craft, or someone else beyond us has..one or the other.


It may have been in a default "Limp-Home Mode" due to an on-board malfunction.

Given the size estimate (provided by eye-witnesses), it is possible that the object observed over OHare was some sort of advanced, unmanned drone.

I will not, at this time, speculate whether it was of terrestrial or extra-terrestrial origin.

However, given the object's observed behavior, I wold speculate that its appearance over an International Airport, in broad daylight, for several continuous minutes, point to an anomulous event rather than a "Planned Presentation".

Consider;

If this vehicle was some sort of "Black Project", developed by a terrestrial agency (other than the the United States), appearing unannounced and unauthorized in restricted civilian airspace would be seen as an overt act of aggression by a foreign enity upon the sovreignty and security of the United States.

If the vehicle were of US origin, there would be no reasonable justification for such furtive exposure if the exposure was intended.

If the craft was of extra-terrestrial origin (assuming that we can, in any sensible way, discern the like motivations of a species completely alien to earthly psychology!), "popping" up in such a public space with no forewarning, and no further effort to communicate, would serve no useful purpose that I can presently fathom.

Therefore, I propose that this "visitor" was suffering from some sort of unexpected circumstance.

If an automomous vehicle, probably of highly sophisticated design, suffered an operational malfunction, perhaps beyond its programed ability to automayically correct, it is possible that its response would be to seek "Home".

It might determine that the "Likeliest" location of "home" would be the source of strongest local electromagnetic radiations; such as one might find ast a busy airport.

My $0.02.




posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Very interesting report, I've downloaded the full thing and as I'm reading through the eyewitness testimonies I'm absolutely ecstatic about the fact that a lot of them mentions the UFOs texture being 'fuzzy' and 'mirror-like, yet not a mirror'. This is very on par with my first UFO sighting and ultimately my theory on UFOs being cloaked and 'hiding in plain sight' most of the time, something I mentioned in the original O'Hare thread as soon as I read that the first time. What I saw was a very weak/cloaked UFO on which you could not make out a texture. Instead it in a very well manner adapted to the surrounding colors and appeared transparent, what was left was a 'fuzzy' looking field in which no sharp edges could be seen, even though I was very close to it.

The way they describe it, as a 'mirror yet not' also is similar to what I saw. What first attracted my attention was the fact that it reacted to a nearby light pole it was passing over (at maybe twice the hight of the pole). It 'reacted' to it, and by react, I mean it reflected the light from the pole, yet in a very random and fuzzy manner. The only resemblance was really that it 'bounced back' the light.

In the end, if I was asked to describe the UFO I witnessed close by, I could definitely describe it as " sort-of-mirrorlike-yet-sort-of-"fuzzyish" ", which is a quote from the report.

Here are some more quotes from the report:

I saw no features whatsoever --- as I said before, there was something about the texture that halfway perplexed me, because while it seemed by its shading almost reflective, it didn't really seem to have a mirror like surface.


my impression is that it was highly reflective, with the upper part mirroring the lighter sky and the underneath mirroring the darker areas (as well as being naturally shaded). "Mirroring" is actually an awkward word, as the "texture" of the craft didn't seem highly polished


Because it has, almost has, this…fuzzy opalescent quality to it. Not mirror-like reflection yet able to reflect but it didn’t seem like a mirror-like metallic hard metal surface.


J.H.: There was a distortion in the immediate sky area very close up to it but a visible distortion [2] which I could see when I looked at it through the reading glasses.


apc, the object had an odd visual effect to it... the sort-of-mirrorlike-yet-sort-of-"fuzzyish" quality... but I did think it was rotating rapidly and counter-clockwise. There was a vague visual effect that seemed to indicate a spinning motion and a slight disruption or distortion of the air very close to the object.


Once I parked, the runways, etc., over that way weren't visible to me, but the object was still high enough to be visible... in fact, it seemed a little "fatter" to me there, which I took to indicate that it was either doing a fat wobble, which I couldn't outright see although that would account for the almost pearly-soft or "fuzzy" effect, or because of its angle I was now able to see a bit more of its underside and less of its top.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   


Could this be how war of the worlds happen?
I mean we see a UFO, and attack it, what will their
response be?


I don't think they would respond, at least not by destroying us. If they meant us harm, we wouldn't be here.

Consider a group of scientists out studying lions, bears or sharks. If the beasts discover their presence and attempt an attack on the scientists, they would never open fire on the poor animals, although they could easily do so if they wished. The scientists have an agenda to help or simply study the creatures, understanding the primitive nature of beasts and their tendancy to attack.

To put it bluntly, they know we are pretty much a bunch of primitive idiots.


[edit on 28-7-2007 by super70]



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lexion

And, Kleverone,
Thanks for catching this uber faux paux first.


But, why would it need to be anti-gravity ?

Why not directed/vectored thrust ?


Because any type of thrust device would be heard, eyewitness accounts describe this as silent.



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 08:15 PM
link   

I don't think they would respond, at least not by destroying us. If they meant us harm, we wouldn't be here.


speculation of the century there.

i have heard a norad operator confirm a UFO on her radar screen from the black box recording on 2 seperate aircraft (same incident). however the next day in the newspaper norad denied it.

i would have to imagine similar 'official' reports would deny the radar presence 'officially'.

there certainly was a UFO in this incident. you could prove it in a court of law, no doubt.

however, origin remains unknown. Great find OP. Im voting for you for way above top secret (in my mind anyway).



posted on Jul, 28 2007 @ 08:57 PM
link   
When I spoke with Dr. Haines, at length, back in April (I think it was April) when he interviewed me for this report, he told me he acquired the Audio tapes and the FAA Tower Log (which we had acquired as well) directly from FAA via FOIA as many investigators (including a few ATS members) did.

I wouldn't say there has been a "lessening" in the "control" of this information, it's a matter of people like Dr. Haines working through these events and presenting scientific method based reports on them.


The information has always been available to anyone who is willing to work the system.

NARCP is fantastic organization and it is working very hard to change the culture of denial caused by the fear of ridicule and reduced job security in the Aviation Industry, specifically with the flight crews.

Countless pilots have made the statement "You will only report ONE UFO in your career". This is very telling of the treatment they receive that keeps them from reporting the subsequent sightings they encounter.

Springer...



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by 3_Libras
Whats strange is that there have been respected people before who have said that UFOs have shown up on radar a number of times..and thats one of the way they detected these objects. And now this one wasnt detected on radar?


We can make fighter jets that elude radar signatures, why is it improbable that a UFO -- especially if it's advanced military tech -- would escape radar detection?



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Taken from page 21 of the PDF report...


The Chicago Tribune (2007) article stated, "Some of the witnesses, interviewed by the Tribune, said they are upset that neither the government nor the airline is probing the incident." In the words of an alleged United Airlines baggage handler witness, "Some of us are getting angry with this being hushed up with all the terrorism and TSA idiots hanging around. If we see a funny looking bag all damn hell breaks loose but park a funny silver thing a few hundred feet above a busy airport and everyone tries to hush it up. It just don’t (sic.) make sense." (Appendix E.4, #5)


While I realize that NARCAP is doing an excellent job of reducing the ridicule felt by those within the aviation industry, there still remains what appears to be the root cause.

The issue is that the perpetuation of ridicule seems to rest quite heavily in the hands of the USAF, TSA, CIA, etc... basically whoever gets in touch with the witnesses, tells them to their faces that they're a fruitloop and to shut the hell up about what they saw.

I seriously doubt that, aside from with airline employees, this is going to make a difference with the USAF and other agencies' "policy" on the matter



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Drexon..yes i can say to you that most of the UFO are cloaked all the time......heck they fly close to buildings so close in fact that they can be 10 to 20 mts above the buildng and nobody will detected.

Let say that if all the UFO's would get all their cloaked out at the same time the sky will be filled by them..well not so great but in great quantities and people will freak out, that why they have to be cloaked, only the ones who want to be seen get their cloaks out..just to see our reactions, but they choose when and how and to who...not us.


The one thing that i can tell you..is that people who actually can see the aura (the energy that is expelled by every living thing)..can see them in the sky easy. Because their ships expell energy...and they cant cloak or hide that..they can hide to you eyes..but not to the energy... sometimes i can see them too ( when i am sensible and i can actually see the aura on people).. i will describe what i see...it's not so hard:

I see the blue sky..and see up and i can see their UFO shapes..(oval shape..or normal UFO disk type).. outside the the shape i can see the color of the sky has it should be...but inside the shape i can see the sky color a tone darker than the outside shape (or ring..or siluotte).. thats how i see them..and yes..they are buzzing the sky all the time in great quantities...

I hope this helps a little bit ...



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by AlexDJ
The one thing that i can tell you..is that people who actually can see the aura (the energy that is expelled by every living thing)..can see them in the sky easy. Because their ships expell energy...and they cant cloak or hide that..they can hide to you eyes..but not to the energy... sometimes i can see them too ( when i am sensible and i can actually see the aura on people).. i will describe what i see...it's not so hard:

I see the blue sky..and see up and i can see their UFO shapes..(oval shape..or normal UFO disk type).. outside the the shape i can see the color of the sky has it should be...but inside the shape i can see the sky color a tone darker than the outside shape (or ring..or siluotte).. thats how i see them..and yes..they are buzzing the sky all the time in great quantities...

I hope this helps a little bit ...


Not really, Alex. This is about as scientific as alchemy. You can see UFO auras?

What I'd really love to know is what happened to the alleged pictures/video of the object. NOT the one that we here at ATS quickly disproved, but the real deal.

Maybe Springer can illuminate this issue, because I recall there being some word that someone snapped a shot.



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 01:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Donoso
Oh well, this is just another one of those cases that shows an extremely strong data set towards:

A) Extraterrestrial Machine
B) Black Ops Project - Possible reverse engineering?


Is there any evidence that any nation has technology like that? That thing not only hovered silently in place (apparently without any visible engines, rotors or such) but accelerated extremely rapidly yet silently upwards and created that nice hole. I mean that's extremely advanced tech and unlike anything I have seen.


Originally posted by behindthescenes
What I'd really love to know is what happened to the alleged pictures/video of the object. NOT the one that we here at ATS quickly disproved, but the real deal.


AFAIK Dan Aykroyd has claimed he has not only photos but also video footage of that thing.


[edit on 30-7-2007 by Nickless]



posted on Jul, 30 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Originally posted by AlexDJ

Drexon..yes i can say to you that most of the UFO are cloaked all the time......heck they fly close to buildings so close in fact that they can be 10 to 20 mts above the buildng and nobody will detected.


Please, provide us ; the adoring perusers, of
proof of this statement.


only the ones who want to be seen get their cloaks out..just to see our reactions, but they choose when and how and to who...not us.


See my plea, above.


The one thing that i can tell you..is that people who actually can see the aura (the energy that is expelled by every living thing)..can see them in the sky easy.


>sigh< Once again, I'm not "special"....


Because their ships expell energy...and they cant cloak or hide that..


Refer to (what I'm going to copyright) Lexion Plea #1.


and yes..they are buzzing the sky all the time in great quantities...


See "Lexion Plea #1".


I hope this helps a little bit ...


Unless you have ANY proof of what you say,
it doesn't help one iota.

It only makes people seriously researching the UFO
(NOT alien) phenom more scorned.

Sickened,
Lex



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:15 AM
link   
So now it's U.A.P. instead of U.F.O. funny how the terminology gets changed all of a sudden when there are credible eye witnessess...

heh heh

The size of this object is intriguing, it would be rather large if it were at a lower altitude. Also rotating motion was witnessed.

That's it. We are being observed by a foreign culture.

Seriously though, if I were an E.T. scientist, i would be interested in my subjects form of aerial transportation methods. An airport would be one of the most interesting points of examination.

An E.T. probably has the potential to be peaceful and information gathering in personality.

When we explore Mars and other regions of outer space, we are the E.T.s. and we have peaceful intentions, just curious ones.

I think with intelligence this is probably a common trait. So long as the culture is prosperous, and not facing major existance problems...

By examining other lifeforms on our planet, we can notice that even lower intelligence lifeforms function without hostility or natural aggressive behaviors, there are some that do but it is natural for them to behave and interact in the manners they do, for example a hungry wolf will hunt for food, as we did back when we were and in some cases still are non-technological.

So the war of the worlds idea is one possibility as is the scientific curiousity one.

Sorry for the information overload but this is always an interesting topic, and this offical report is even more interesting.



[edit on 8/6/2007 by Brainiac]

[edit on 8/6/2007 by Brainiac]



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   
9.4 kJ/m3
1526.00° Fahrenheit

This object created this much heat?



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 07:22 AM
link   
HA HA, a 152 pages on some crap ufo sighting (hovering for 10 minutes and NO ONE SAW IT LONG ENOUGH TO GET A PICTURE) Sounds like this goof ball is trying to further his own ego. There SIMPLY IS NOT ENOUGH SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL IN THIS INVESTIGATION TO EVEN WARRANT 152 PAGES OF UTTER RUBBISH.

(Crap, sorry caps lock got hit and I am way to lazy to re-type. I swear I wasn't screaming, lol)

I have heard that there is pictures and video, but I can assure you it is nothing more than some blurry, fuzzy and inconclusive piece of garbage or it would have been out by now.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
HA HA, a 152 pages on some crap ufo sighting (hovering for 10 minutes and NO ONE SAW IT LONG ENOUGH TO GET A PICTURE) Sounds like this goof ball is trying to further his own ego. There SIMPLY IS NOT ENOUGH SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL IN THIS INVESTIGATION TO EVEN WARRANT 152 PAGES OF UTTER RUBBISH.


How many of those 152 pages did you read? I thought it was a sober and thoughtful report that was honest about how much could be concluded from the evidence at hand. Could it be done better if the investigators had been given open access to witnesses who didn't feel the threat of job or career truncation? Could it be done better if these investigators actually got a little funding for their work so they could do it full time?

Could it be done better without the giggle factor that UFO believers themselves have so energetically fostered?

Yes.



posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky

Originally posted by IgnoreTheFacts
HA HA, a 152 pages on some crap ufo sighting (hovering for 10 minutes and NO ONE SAW IT LONG ENOUGH TO GET A PICTURE) Sounds like this goof ball is trying to further his own ego. There SIMPLY IS NOT ENOUGH SCIENTIFIC MATERIAL IN THIS INVESTIGATION TO EVEN WARRANT 152 PAGES OF UTTER RUBBISH.


How many of those 152 pages did you read? I thought it was a sober and thoughtful report that was honest about how much could be concluded from the evidence at hand. Could it be done better if the investigators had been given open access to witnesses who didn't feel the threat of job or career truncation? Could it be done better if these investigators actually got a little funding for their work so they could do it full time?

Could it be done better without the giggle factor that UFO believers themselves have so energetically fostered?

Yes.


I could write 152 pages about my crazy neighbor's "bigfoot" sighting (in a city area no less, lol) and present it in the same meaningful, sober manner. Doesn't make it true. In my opinion this whole "incident" started from people seeing "something" and their overactive minds filling in the blanks.

NOTHING like this could happen at O'Hara without there being videos or pictures of it, from multiple angles and multiple devices. I mean, someone walks down the sidewalk and trips nowadays and it's being laughed at on youtube within hours, but something like this happens and.......nothing.



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Anyone here find it odd that the 00000000 image was not analyzed by these people?

They talk about faked pictures, but only one mention of the 00000000 picture (and that is from a copy of single post from Eyewitness to Skyway, not by NARCAP)

What does that say about the 00000000 picture? Is it so fake that NARCAP won't even mention it? If it was a "good" picture (as Jeff Ritzmann seemed to think when he analyzed here on ATS) then you would think NARCAP would make some mention of it, wouldn't you?

For that matter, why is Jeff Ritzmann mentioned in the special thanks section of the report if the work he did on the 00000000 image isn't mentioned in it?

I was hoping for more information on that picture.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 04:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Telos
Well I finished reading the report. I would say definitely the best report ever done on a ufo sighting. Well written and very convincing. I think the whole idea is not to prove that the object was there and was an object indeed and not a weather balloon or a swamp gas.


Telos - great thread and I agree about the report.


Found this other interesting USAF document which describes a similar(ish) object over O'Hare airport from 1952 .

The UFO was described as a smooth, silver, flat, oval shaped object which 'moved faster than any jet fighter' and was witnessed by three USAF Air Policemen as well as separately located firemen.




June 29, 1952; O'Hare Airport, Chicago, Illinois.






5:45-6:30 p.m. (CDT).

3 USAF air policemen, 83rd Air Base Sq, Air Police Detachment, S/Sgt. Lopez, A/1c Weber, and A/3c Korkowski, saw a bright silver, smooth surfaced, flat oval 30 ft object at about 500 to­1,000 ft height about 2-3 miles away reflecting sunlight surrounded by a blue circle of haze for the first 20-25 mins, hovering, appeared between radio towers for stations WGN and WBBN 7 miles away to the WSW at about 2° elevation and to the left and S of the setting sun, then move very fast to the right and left, and up and down relative to the radio towers, moving almost instantaneously and much faster than any jet fighter. Object rocked on its longitudinal axis, appeared oval when oriented vertically, thin and difficult to see when horizontal.
Object receded at high speed then disappeared like shutting off a light. No trail, no noise. Independently witnessed by Chicago firemen several miles away.


Link


Cheers.



posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by daystrom
 


Probably because I steered them away from the pic. The final result was that it seemed to be a legitimate photo, but that it had been tampered with in a very minor way - that's not to say the object in it wasn't really there - in fact it had nothing to do with the object at all. But had the pic been touted as "real", it's a possibility that the pic was a setup to discredit anyone who would claim it undoctored. Pretty slick. And no one fell for it.

I guess I'm also mentioned because I sent NARCAP the aerial shots of where the object was in relation to the witness that I spoke with directly - who pegged the object exactly where I said it ought to be via the picture from her first vantage point of the sighting.

By virtue of that, I do not agree that then object was over gate C17 at the time of the photo, nor at the time that the witness saw it initially. If it was sighted directly over C17, then my only guess is that it did in fact move then remain stationary.

I also sent them all the hoaxed photos that came out complete with their background plate shots which were all found on then net.

I might point out that the possibility of a lack of visual data in this case could point to what every witness to it I spoke with told me: that it was somewhat difficult to see. To think of someone trying to see it on a small cam viewfinder...well, it's likely many photos were deleted when they didn't see the UO on the small LCD screen.

All that is strictly a guess. I am however convinced there indeed was a significant object over O'hare that day, and it would seem to follow other hallmarks of paranormal activity based on the anti-structural environment.



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join