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: 3
35
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
reply to post by karl 12
 


hey, that's pretty good detective work karl12


so, whatever the heck it is seems to have checked the place out twice already...

like I pointed out before, there used to be a military section at o'hare until recently that was restricted; this is probably what was of interest to the anomaly.

who knows, maybe they used to keep the roswell crash debris and/or its fatalities there


starred...

[edit on 12-3-2010 by reject]




posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


Reject, thanks for the reply -the two reports do sound pretty similar.




1952


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

Link






2006


I immediately called our operations center to confirm the sighting and the FAA was contacted while I drove to the other concourse to talk with the witnesses. I spoke with an employee working that gate who said he was compelled to look straight up for some reason and was startled to see the craft hovering silently. He then made the radio call and notified the pilots at that gate who opened the front windows and witnessed the object for themselves.The employee stated the object was 500-1000 feet above the ground, rotating, and metallic in nature with no lights. He said it looked like a frisbe and was directly above.

Link


Cheers.



posted on Apr, 8 2010 @ 08:19 AM
link   
Well, it did not take long for that one to disappear. All the links to the report are dead ends.

I hope someone who downloaded the report will post a copy somewhere we can get to it.

[edit on 8-4-2010 by expat2368]



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by expat2368
Well, it did not take long for that one to disappear. All the links to the report are dead ends.



Here we go.


NARCAP Findings Report (pdf)


Taken from Jerry Pippin podcast page:

Link


Cheers.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
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.


Are you sure it was an object? I noticed NARCAP calls it an UAP or unidentified aerial phenomenon and if there was ever a case for referring to a sighting as a UAP instead of a UFO, I think this is such a sighting.

They saw something, but whether or not it was an object is unclear to me, so it was definitely a UAP, but not necessarily a UFO from what I've read of the report so far.

And something that lasted for maybe 20 minutes, in 2006 and no photos is more than disappointing. Maybe some people took and then deleted photos as you suggested but that seems strange too. If this thing was really the size of a quarter held at arms length as claimed, you would think that's big enough to show up, right?



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
Could this be how war of the worlds happen?
I mean we see a UFO, and attack it, what will their
response be?


Exactly. It's a terrifying thought, actually. Clearly, they'd have the upper hand should some kind of war break out. Resulting in us being the smoked ham.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
Are you sure it was an object? I noticed NARCAP calls it an UAP or unidentified aerial phenomenon and if there was ever a case for referring to a sighting as a UAP instead of a UFO, I think this is such a sighting.



Arbitrageur, I don't think NARCAP makes a distinction between the two descriptions and prefers to refer to all the UFO reports they investigate as 'UAP'.




The National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena was established late in 2000, and is dedicated to the advancement of aviation safety issues as they apply to Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP).

NARCAP collects data regarding aviation community reports of aerial encounters with lights or objects that seem inconsistent with known categories of aircraft and common natural phenomena. These lights or objects are reported to appear in a variety of colors and shapes. We refer to these objects or lights as Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP).

Pilots and other aviation specialists often report that these lights or objects closely approach aircraft. Encounters with these lights or objects, UAP, have a demonstrated a variety of safety related effects on pilots, crew, cockpit discipline and on-board instrumentation. Until these effects are understood and reasonable operating procedures are developed, there exists a tangible threat to aviation safety. Comparable issues in the aviation arena include wind shear and other types of events with a low frequency of occurance.

Though aerial encounters with Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP) have been documented at least since the 1930's, the aviation industry has been hesitant about addressing this matter. Cold War security issues, cultural mythology as well as concerns about image have prohibited many aviation executives from pursuing this matter with more curiosity. Certainly many cases have gone unreported by aviation professionals for the same reason.


Link


Cheers.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by karl 12
Arbitrageur, I don't think NARCAP makes a distinction between the two descriptions and prefers to refer to all the UFO reports they investigate as 'UAP'.


Yes I know this, but I think this case is an example of why they don't use the term UFO.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arbitrageur, thanks for the reply - I actualy prefer UAP to Ruppelt's acronym as I think it sounds more scientific (and less loaded with prejudice) - Unidentified Aerial Phenomena still refers to objects though.




NARCAP - These lights or objects are reported to appear in a variety of colors and shapes. We refer to these objects or lights as Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP).


Cheers.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 01:14 PM
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.


ITF, if a solid flying object is seen flying over an airport, what do you expect them to do? Nothing at all? You don't feel this is a possible hazard? I imagine much longer reports get written over the most minor of malfunctions on the airplanes themselves. If an object can hover over an airport, and cannot be seen on radar, nor physically from the control tower, this presents a real and serious threat to the safety of the flights. You really expect them to just ignore it?

Not everyone carries cameras around with them. I doubt that the baggage folks even have phones on them - it's not like they can use them while working after all. There was one photo of course, not positively attributed to the sighting however.

Unless of course, you are suggesting that people who WORK AT AN AIRPORT every day, see aircraft CONSTANTLY, have no idea what they are talking about in regards to a non-conventional craft floating above their airport. Or it's a big hoax. Is that what you are suggesting?

As far as UFOs being attacked - I'd think they would be well aware of such a possible outcome. They'd have to know we have weapons, and I'd guess if they have any intelligence at all, they could deduce such a response from us. Either they are willing to take the risk, or such attacks really don't concern them (i.e. we can't touch them with what we have). Even now, without limited technology and intelligence, WE would deduce that, visiting a new world.



posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Unless of course, you are suggesting that people who WORK AT AN AIRPORT every day, see aircraft CONSTANTLY, have no idea what they are talking about in regards to a non-conventional craft floating above their airport.


I would suggest that NOBODY can be trusted to give 100% accurate and reliable eyewitness accounts, NOBODY, including myself, and I'm talking about the people that AREN'T hoaxing. And I don't think you or Dr Haines seem to show an appreciation of this fact. You would think that pilots make better observers but even with all their experience they are also subject to making misidentifications.

OK here's my evaluation of what I read of Dr Haines' report:

Collecting lots of facts and data and presenting it well: A+
Interpreting those data: F

His own research shows that if it was a solid object, it should have showed up on radar, but it didn't, yet he concludes that it was "apparently" a solid object. Well I at least give him credit for inserting the word "apparently", maybe that should earn him a D+ instead of an F.

In a ridiculous circular argument, he states that other cases have been noted where objects in the air didn't show up on radar like the America West sighting in 1995, yet it has never been demonstrated that there was a real solid object involved in that sighting either.

He dismissed the FAA explanation of weather or lights by saying that it couldn't have been lights, and just says the weather explanation is ridiculous, and quotes someone I never heard of to supposedly support that view. The FAA said "unusual" weather phenomenon, and perhaps if that's what it was, it's a phenomenon we are not yet familiar with, so listing the known phenomena and saying it's none of those hardly rules out the possibility that it's an unknown weather phenomenon.

I'm not saying the FAA is right and that it was a weather phenomenon, but what I am saying is that the lack of radar data is pretty strong evidence that this shouldn't be ruled out as a possibility yet Haines is very dismissive of the idea. I also don't find his argument that if the object was spherical it would have had a low radar cross section very compelling, as I might if the object were seen 100 miles from the airport. This object was AT the airport and so close to the radar that even an object with a low radar cross section should be visible to radar.

Also his argument that the tower personnel might have been unable to see it is pretty weak. He points out that it must have been about 1900 feet or lower but the best the tower personnel might have see up to was about 1802 feet. I give him credit for identifying a 98 foot window between 1802 feet and 1900 feet where it might not have been visible from the tower and that may be accurate, however, what a coincidence if it was really an object and it just happened to be at 1850 feet which is the only altitude the tower couldn't see? Well he says the tower personnel might not have seen it between 1438 and 1802 feet of they didn't lean forward to look for it, but if they were alerted to the presence of an object, it's not unreasonable to think that his 1802 feet calculation may be more likely.

I don't think it was a hoax, I suspect people saw something unusual, but I think it's unclear whether or not a real solid object was involved. Dr. Haines thinks probably so and tends to rule out an explanation other than a solid object, I tend to think it probably wasn't a solid object though I wouldn't rule it out, but since nobody got any pictures, it's likely we will never know. The hardest to explain UFO cases seem to be the ones with no pictures!



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

I would suggest that NOBODY can be trusted to give 100% accurate and reliable eyewitness accounts, NOBODY, including myself, and I'm talking about the people that AREN'T hoaxing. And I don't think you or Dr Haines seem to show an appreciation of this fact. You would think that pilots make better observers but even with all their experience they are also subject to making misidentifications.


And while I think people often can get confused about what they see, I also feel that people are not given enough credit for what they do witness. This wasn't seen by the crazy cat lady in a dark park at night, it was seen by pilots, baggage handlers, and people who work at an airport every day. You think they were ALL mistaken?

Let's break that down a bit. I think it can be assumed that these folks all saw something that was extraordinary enough to make them take pause and look at it. Some were calling inside, others were responding and running out to see it. I'd say even after a few moments of observation, when at least a dozen or more people who work at an airport cannot identity the object, we can rule out any conventional aircraft. Not only because they'd recognize it for what it was, but because there was no radar returns.

After several minutes, they witnessed this thing shooting upwards at a great velocity, so much, it was hard for some to see it depart at all, and it punched a hole in the clouds. Well, I'd have to say this rules out many other conventional things you could see in the sky... weather balloons, RC stuff, etc.

If you are suggesting they were mistaken.. fooled.. what do you suggest it was they saw then? Can you name a conventional object that can do this?

The closest attempt to explain this was on a physics board I read awhile back. It's still up, so:

www.physicsforums.com...

They put forth a theory of it being invisible airplane gasses in the form of a column, that could create a similar effect to ripples over a road during a hot day. However, other scientists have chimed in on that theory, and deem it unlikely, especially from the angles it was viewed. Also the rapid departure and hole in the clouds is so remarkable, to say gasses caused it via a rare but unknown atmospheric condition while I suppose is plausible, it's barely so, on the edge of being pseudo-science to try and make a case.

I personally don't think that this many people who are experienced in at least viewing aircraft, could be duped for many minutes after something simple and conventional.

Perhaps there is some bizarre, natural phenomena that could cause this visual effect.. or the hole in the clouds. The tricky bit imo, is both. Had just one or the other occurred, perhaps it would be easier to explain away.

But to give next to no credit for the experience of those making this sighting is ridiculous imo. They are not hoaxers, hacks, nor even inexperienced when it comes to aerial objects. When you say they are "not reliable," what exactly do you mean? That they were fooled by the weather conditions? Or what exactly?

What about the sighting makes you think they may not be reliable witnesses in what they reported? What could they be mistaking, for something else?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:44 PM
link   
Having first saw the news broadcast on Youtube a while back regarding the O'hare incident and actually listening to the two broadcasters discuss it off-air I have since shown a huge interest in the O'Hare sighting.

My first initial thoughts on the subject ruled out hoax, simply because of the location and the witnesses who were listed involved. I also saw something else on Youtube as well maybe CNN Where by a panel discussed the o'hare incident. Each offering their theories on what it could of been.

I was told a while back that the initial investigation concluded that it was weather phenomena. Even with this explanation I was pretty dis-satisfied with the outcome, i was also surprised like many that considering this happened in 2006, considering that ok not everyone carries mobile phones.

Assuming that the discussion between radar operators, the airline crew and the ATCT watchers went down something like this.

Airline Pilot: We have a solid object visible around 1850 feet can you check and see if this object is visible on radar?
Radar and ATCT: Negative, we DO NOT have an object visible.

Now at this stage, dont we have CCTV? Surely video footage is obtained. Lets be truthful here, this is 5 years after 9/11, terrorism and security was supposed to be stepped up at airports... and yet no CCTV footage?

Surely even if an ATCT employee cannot get a positive identification on it on radar or via the window the next step would be the CCTV room??

I've watch plenty of documentaries following the Police Service, they have CCTV control rooms as well as a helicopter that can use a thermal Imaging camera... so for their to be NO cctv or video footage at all from an incident like this at an International airport, leaves me questioning why not?

Unless the CCTV footage was confiscated, has this avenue been persued?

I'm going to read the pdf now from Richard Haines report. I have starred the OP for posting this up. Thank you very much.

In friendship



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
Perhaps there is some bizarre, natural phenomena that could cause this visual effect.. or the hole in the clouds. The tricky bit imo, is both. Had just one or the other occurred, perhaps it would be easier to explain away.

But to give next to no credit for the experience of those making this sighting is ridiculous imo. They are not hoaxers, hacks, nor even inexperienced when it comes to aerial objects. When you say they are "not reliable," what exactly do you mean? That they were fooled by the weather conditions? Or what exactly?

What about the sighting makes you think they may not be reliable witnesses in what they reported? What could they be mistaking, for something else?


I'm not pretending to know what it is, but since you're asking me to speculate, I'll speculate. The physicsforums scenario you posted is plausible, in fact here's a photograph of a documented phenomenon which I think could be mistaken for an object in the sky:

www.caelestia.be...


That "vortex ring" was formed by burning kerosene among other things, and the jet engine burning jet fuel could also generate the required heat. And the heat related phenomenon could also explain the hole in the clouds. Also the typical size of a vortex ring matches the size of the object reported.

www.caelestia.be...

They undoubtedly rank amongst the most eccentric sky phenomena on the planet: the metres-wide rings of vapour or smoke that can be seen floating through the air on occasion.

The physics behind these "vortex rings" is very complex. Moreover, vortex rings do not always form in the same way. In most instances, the rings are formed by air mixed with smoke or steam that is forced out of a (relatively) small circular or cylindrical opening (this can be a chimney, the barrel of a canon, or a vent in a volcano crater).
Or possibly the exhaust from a jet engine?

Looking at a vortex ring with a different shape, it looks like a solid object even to me and just like the O'hare incident, it apparently appears immediately under the cloud cover:

Very strange "Ring" UFO sighting at King's Dominion Virginia!


Originally posted by mitman93
On Youtube I had subscribed to my favorite local newstation. In their latest video, they had a supposed UFO sighting over King's Dominion Amusement park. I wasn't quite sure what to make of it. So, I quickly made my 20 posts and made this thread


What do you guys think it is?




UPDATE: Wavy News has made another video. This time explaining on what the object could be...


Witnesses to the video see something they can't identify:

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Originally posted by Starseed32
This does not look like a smoke ring to me. It doesn't even look like a reflection. I think it could possible be a disc that is partially cloaked. The outer ring is visiable but the center part of the object is blending in with the overcast sky.


www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Ansiroth
hmmm, doesnt look like a smoke ring to me. Iv'e blown lots of smoke rings in my life and for something to emit a smoke ring that large i'd almost speculate that whatever created it might as well have been designed to blow it out intentionally.


We're all looking at the same video here and I don't think these witnesses I quoted are lying or hoaxing. We are all seeing something unusual, and are having a hard time interpreting what we see. This is to be expected.

And regarding movement of the UAP at O'Hare:


Originally posted by fleabit
After several minutes, they witnessed this thing shooting upwards at a great velocity, so much, it was hard for some to see it depart at all, and it punched a hole in the clouds.


This may be a clue: "so much, it was hard for some to see it depart at all". So they see what appears to be an object, then they don't see it, and they see a hole in the clouds. Our brains try to make sense out of that in a logical fashion and cause us to make statements like "shooting upwards at a great velocity" when in fact the accuracy of that statement is contradicted by "it was hard for some to see it depart at all". One possibility is, that it did shoot up at great velocity as they stated, and another possibility is, it didn't shoot up, it disappeared and by seeing the hole in the clouds their brain filled in the blanks and made them think it shot up, without intentionally trying to deceive or hoax they could realistically be expected to say it shot up at great velocity, even if in fact that's not what happened. That's our brains' way of trying to make sense out of things that don't make sense.

Again, I don't know what they saw, I'm only saying this (or something like it, such as the physicsforums scenario) is a possibility since you asked me to speculate. It seems inappropriate for Dr Haines to dismiss possibilities like this one, especially since it's a better match for the radar data than a solid object explanation. I admit it could be something else, and possibly it even did shoot up as some witnesses claimed, though if I was a gambler, I wouldn't bet on it.





[edit on 13-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Superiorraw
Now at this stage, dont we have CCTV?

Is it possible that a height of 1850 feet is above the field of view of the CCTV cameras?

Also we're not sure if the UAP was visible from all angles, or only certain angles, so even if a more distant cam had the height of 1850 feet in its field of view, that may not have been at the correct angle to see what the witnesses saw, especially if it was a visual phenomenon and not a solid object.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 09:22 PM
link   
Did you read the thread I pointed to? Much of what you are talking about was discussed in much greater, scientific detail. But even then, other scientists find this a stretch. Because of the rate of speed this occurred. The hole didn't slowly form. It appeared almost instantly, as the object accelerated vertically. It left that hole. You can read all about the theories of a vertical column of fumes. It's a far reach. Especially at the rate it appeared.

And if this was a common phenomena, it would have been seen and reported at airports for a very long time now. Yet this has never been seen. If this was commonplace, people would know about it. It only happened this one special time? I find that difficult to believe. No saying the absolutely perfect and weird conditions of weather, one particular plane idling for takeoff, could not have perhaps created this effect... but I find it a stretch. Science certainly hasn't explained this, nor replicated the effect.



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by fleabit
It appeared almost instantly, as the object accelerated vertically. It left that hole. You can read all about the theories of a vertical column of fumes. It's a far reach. Especially at the rate it appeared.


Do you believe a witness when they tell you how long it took for something to happen? This further illustrates my point you shouldn't assume the accuracy of witness statements even when they are not lying or hoaxing:

THE ACCURACY OF TESTIMONY RELATIVE TO TIME INTERVALS


Other studies indicate recall estimates from four seconds to five minutes for a 20 second interval, and from one second to 60 seconds for a four second interval.


That's a pretty big margin of error, wouldn't you say?

The hole might have already been there and was revealed when the object disappeared so it only appeared to form instantly.

The reason I posted pictures of a REAL phenomenon is that I did read the physics forums thread and while they are speculating, the picture I posted is not speculation, it's a real picture. Probably not exactly what they saw but an illustration that unusual formations can and do happen.


And if this was a common phenomena, it would have been seen and reported at airports for a very long time now.
I never said it was common, and perhaps the one thing we can all agree on is that it's unusual, whatever it was. And while I think the argument that unusual events occur rarely has merit, it can only be used to dismiss cases that would be seen commonly if it's an unusual occurrence. In this case, if it's an unusual occurrence and seeing it happens rarely, then it's consistent.

The same argument was used to explain why TWA 800 could not have blown up because of a center fuel tank explosion, because it surely would have happened before. That's the same argument you're making and it doesn't fly against an unusual occurrence. The 747 center fuel tank doesn't normally blow up, but it can and did happen, exactly one time, and likewise you can't rule out a sighting cause just because it's unusual. Actually those vortex sightings like the one I posted the photograph of, have been photographed numerous times, so while they're unusual, they aren't one time events like the 747 center fuel tank explosion.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


True.
But theres no mention anywhere of CCTV being sought or used at any point, it's almost like CCTV control rooms dont exist at 'one of the busiest airports' that year.
Maybe the CCTV was out of range, I just think its odd its not an avenue that has been persued or mentioned at all. Most of the CCTV in operation I would imagine focuses on activity inside the airport, however surely they have perimeter CCTV?

I was reading online the other day a home CCTV kit you can get which has NV detection up to 5M. That's now, I cant imagine the airport not having something similar available to them at a busy airport.
Even if the CCTV is inconclusive or too far away wouldn't it of been better to report they did persue this avenue and wasn't successfull in determining what the object was?

Usually when a crime takes place, thats one of the first things we try and obtain now, CCTV footage, its direct evidence to what just occured. if someone leaves a stray bag in an airport, CCTV rooms go mad and ask security staff to check it out,. we have CCTV that can be used at Sporting Venues to pick out potential hooligans and known trouble causers.

Maybe they didnt have the technology or the right equipment in place by 2006? I just find it odd that at a busy airport like that, the media everyone looks to others to question why no video or phone pictures were taken when the obvious choice to me would be CCTV?

I haven't finished reading the report yet, i'm 56 pages into it. But still no mention of CCTV. The report is consistent in mapping out where witnesses were and what everyone was doing, where each plane was and how high the tower is but doesnt even mention the use of the cameras, I dont even know if they have CCTV outside in the gates of O'Hare airport?



posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 08:59 AM
link   
ok,
I've finished reading this report. Props again to the OP for putting this up. As the report concludes a couple of things NARCAP filed FOI Request on many things. An Interview on Page 126 from Sam Maranto (MUFON) and witness J.H

Sam: Did you notice how many security cameras are around the airport?

JH: Not just in the airport, but everywhere, That concourse area, all of the RAMP Areas the mechanic area that surround this spot.

The witness is questioned by MUFONs Sam Maranto but the report doesn't acknowledge any particular investigation or FOI Request on the CCTV issue, they've requested info on radar, on ATC dialogue but so far no conclusive mention on the CCTV issue.

For what it's worth, I Just sent NARCAP an email just to get closure and to ask why this avenue wasn't explored.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   
It did only take a few hours for NARCAP To respond to my email. I sent my email at around 10:30am and got a reply at 8:50pm in the evening.

Here is what they had to say regarding CCTV

Hi Richard, Thank you for your thoughtful note and question.

With respect to cctv, I believe we discussed that rather early on and concluded that it was likely that security cameras would be focused on various ground targets like doorways and gate entries parking areas, etc..and so would probably not be pointed skyward.

We did not confirm this but it was a reasonable assumption. The UAP was an estimated 1200ft AGL and the angle of observation for a camera at the terminals would have had to be rather oblique. I have my doubts that there was much in the way of photo documentation of this incident. It can be quite challenging for witnesses to even remember that they have a camera when these events occur. Then there is the issue of a clear pic and the process of analysis and proving it is authentic.... leaves a lot of room for argument. Radar data helps but these UAP arent always radar-reflective...

This case was primarily an anecdotal one with very little in the way of supporting data. It is compelling because professionals have offered consistent and supporting statements that they witnessed a UAP incursion into class B airspace. We actually had witnesses including pilots give us off-the-record statements.... It would be great if there was more evidence but these UAP don't leave much in the way of traces (in this type of event, anyway). Thanks for your interest in NARCAP, please take a look at our Technical Reports page for some other interesting documents and case studies.

Ted Roe Executive Director NARCAP.org


Ok. From what it sounds like they made the assumption that CCTV footage would not show the UFO at all. so no follow up was done. I cant help but think this is something they should be checking, even the perimeter CCTV footage might have something.

I dont think as a UK citizen I can file a FOI Request on a US Case. Is there anyone here in the US willing to file one for the CCTV footage?



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join