UFO over O'Hare

[CLD]

Just for the heck of it, I reposted this in a woo board discussion of the UFO incident:

Is it just me, or does the second picture here...

...look strikingly similar to the picture found here?

What are the odds of that?

Here is the response I got:

My guess is that the airport has a fixed camera set up in that spot. All photos taken will look almost identical, except for lighting. At that level, nothing is changing - you don't have traffic, or people, or new buildings being erected. So the pics will look identical

the tail of a United Airlines plane in the lower left of the photo. It would always be there if UA always uses the gates in that area of the airport.

it could possibly be in the same position at times when the camera catches it if it's up to a gate to load up.

Note To Self: Objectivity can be suspended if one really WANTS to believe.

 

[baron]

It was R.A.F.'s opinion. He concluded you were an a$$. He also concluded that you shoudl respond to his questions. In an admittedly large leap of logic he thought sarcasm would be appropriate. Not a conclusion I personally agree with but I don't find any difficulty in understanding his reasoning, nor do I feel the need to berate this guy for expressing an opinion.

And do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you content to be an a$$?

 

[baron]

My guess is that the airport has a fixed camera set up in that spot. All photos taken will look almost identical, except for lighting. At that level, nothing is changing - you don't have traffic, or people, or new buildings being erected. So the pics will look identical

I guess they have such things as fixed planes, too...

 

[Hellbound]

And do you have anything to add to the discussion, or are you content to be an a$$?

I'm prefectly content to reply in kind. Much like you, being an a$$ is mnore fun than actually participating in the discussion.

However, just so you won't feel as if you need to start another hypocritical, sanctimonious tirade, I'll provide a tidbit:

You CANNOT determine the size of an aerial object without knowing the distance, and vice versa. His estimations of size, speed, and distance were as valid as any WAG I might make, within the limits of the ground and the cloud deck. The witness in questions make completely unsupportable assumptions from ignorance, and his entire "reasoning" that led to the interpretation of "it's aliens!" consists of arguments from ignorance, or logical fallacies.

I would not say stoned or liar, myself, but that's another's opinion. I will say that this "evidence" can be dismissed with nothing more than the fact that the entirety of it, as far as evidence for alien craft, is somebody's guess. Can I rule out aliens? No, perhaps not. I also canot rule out flying monkeys, Dumbo, tears in the space-time fabric of the universe, a buttered cat antigravity array, or l;evitating Mr. Hanky. Non of which implies that any of these ideas have any validity whatsoever, just as a witnesses uninformed interpretation has no bearing whatsoever on the actual reality of this incident (and is actually emnical to the accurate reporting of his observation, as it is immediately obvious that his account is embellished in order to fit his preconceptions and cultural ideas).

 

[baron]

You CANNOT determine the size of an aerial object without knowing the distance, and vice versa. His estimations of size, speed, and distance were as valid as any WAG I might make, within the limits of the ground and the cloud deck. The witness in questions make completely unsupportable assumptions from ignorance, and his entire "reasoning" that led to the interpretation of "it's aliens!" consists of arguments from ignorance, or logical fallacies.

I would not say stoned or liar, myself, but that's another's opinion. I will say that this "evidence" can be dismissed with nothing more than the fact that the entirety of it, as far as evidence for alien craft, is somebody's guess. Can I rule out aliens? No, perhaps not. I also canot rule out flying monkeys, Dumbo, tears in the space-time fabric of the universe, a buttered cat antigravity array, or l;evitating Mr. Hanky. Non of which implies that any of these ideas have any validity whatsoever, just as a witnesses uninformed interpretation has no bearing whatsoever on the actual reality of this incident.

I will answer the second part of your post (that part worthy of response).

I said that, to the best of his knowledge, the witnesses provided an estimate as to size, height and location. I never said those estimates were accurate and I never said they could not be mistaken.

Your argument that valid estimates cannot be produced is based on what? Please detail what leads you to this conclusion, bearing in mind we are not talking about a featureless object in clear air at infinite focus against a blank background. I have already specified features I personally would take into account to make my own judgement. Why not back up your argument instead of saying "It's impossible" and expecting reasonable people to believe you.

Read my posts where I have argued that his interpretation is irrelevant in terms of any phenomenon that might have occurred. If you have read them, why make the same point to me that I have already dealt with? (EDIT: Ah, I see you have at least read one of them, yet you just re-quoted it with hilarious results instead of actually attempting to understand it)

Yet again - to the best of anybody's current knowledge he provided his best estimate and description of what he saw. What is the problem here? If you saw something would you attempt to describe it, along with its position, or would you simply say "I saw something but beyond that I cannot possibly make any judgement."? To provide such information is something that anybody would do, and should not be discouraged from doing by intellectual pomposity as we repeatedly see here.

(and is actually emnical to the accurate reporting of his observation, as it is immediately obvious that his account is embellished in order to fit his preconceptions and cultural ideas)

Please back this up with evidence.

 

[Hellbound]

Intellectual pomposity?

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

Let's examine the factors you would use for your estimate, shall we?

He uses factors such as the cloud ceiling,

The cloud ceiling only places an upper limit on the distance. I adressed that.

strength and direction of natural illumination,

Um, how can this tell you the distance to or size of an object? The difference in the angle of the sun at a distance of 1900 feet is nigh indetectible. If he can use this to determine distance, get him here for the challenge, he's about to be a millionaire.

atmospheric hazing

So he knew the exact visibility imparted by the air on that particular day at the particular elevations from ground to 1900 feet, and estimated a distance based on that? And also ruled out any problems that might be related to his own vision? At DUSK?

and his natural ability to grossly judge distance using the focus of his yes.

An ability that has been evolutionarily shaped to dodge things like thrown rocks and leaping tigers, and loses accuracy significantly with distance.

When the object moves through the cloud ceiling he is able to further refine his estimates based on its apparent speed and time until it disappeared.

But without knowing the initial location, speed, size, and direction his estimates cannot be accurate with any degree of certainty. Even watching large planes (known-size objects, C-130s in my case) flying at much shorter distances (as much as a few hundred feet, they fly low into the airbase near here) it is very difficult to even determine the direction the plane is travelling with any accuracy, much less the speed. And that is with a known size object. Add in that this is a dusk (low-light) condition, and if he can do this we need to get him out of his mechanics job and into the Guiness book.

I dismiss this readily because it's blatant ignorance. It's apparant that this is your guesses, guesses which simply reinforce my view that this was an argument from ignorance. The factors you would use are what most people would, and these will not give you an accurate estimate of the distance or the size. Pilots and other professionals will be the first to tell you that determining size, speed, and direction of an object in the air is near impossible to do by eye, unless you havea nearby known size object that can be used as a comparison. Even then, you have to know exactly how close this known-size object is to make any sort of accurate determination.

And this is why I say it is immediately obvious his account is embellished. He had no accurate way of determining the size or distance to the object. He could not accurately identify it's speed or vectors. Yet he concludes it is an alien spacecraft? That is the influence of culture, and since the idea is in his head, his account immediately becomes suspect. His memory immediately becomes suspect, as its very likely that additional details will be added, coinciding with the alien spacecraft idea, as the story is remembered and retold.

Now, if you can quit throwing strawmen around everywhere:

If you saw something would you attempt to describe it, along with its position, or would you simply say "I saw something but beyond that I cannot possibly make any judgement." To provide such information is something that anybody would do, and should not be discouraged from doing by intellectual pomposity as we repeatedly see here.

and listen to actual arguments, we might get somewhere. OF course, without your strawman you couldn't act morally superior and pull off that smug, condescending tone...but oh well.

Saying "It's an alien spacecraft" does NOT provide any information as to what he saw. If he wanted to describe it's shape, color, and apparent size and psoition, great. However, he didn't. He said it was a craft. He could NOT have possibly known this from the information he had. He did not provide an accurate accoutning of what he saw, he proivided an embellished version of what he thought the object he saw was.

Why not back up your argument instead of saying "It's impossible" and expecting reasonable people to believe you.

If I were talking to a reasonable person, I'd be more concerned. This is simply more of your hypocrisy, though. You expect us to give credence to the "alien spacecraft" description of the mechanic, based only on his word with no evidence. Nice.

 

[Hellbound]

You still don't see the irony here, do you?

We have someone claiming "alien craft!" on the basis of little to no evidence at all (there's barely enough evidence to conclude they saw something). A very small minority make the claims of liar or stoned. The rest discuss the possibilities more or less intelligently (with a bit of humor, which humans actually enjoy). You focus on these minority of posts, claiming we're all playing intellectual snobs, while situationg yourself firmly on top of the highest horse around and berating the entire board for the actions of a few posters. While talking about how the board paints all the alien-sighters with the same brush, you paint everyone here with a brush just as wide. You complain about us acting intellectually superior, while looking "down" on us from your apparently believed intellectual superiority. Your actions here are the hieght of hypocrisy, baron. Mote, plank, etc.

 

[MichelQC]

Okay.

Several dozen rather than one.

84 instead of 12.

What do you think of this?

Mass hysteria???

Who says they didn't?

The FAA?

The original linked article at the beginning of the thread is not very precise on the actual number of witnesses so a point for you.

I conclude nothing except that they saw what they described as an "unidentified flying object".

I certainly don't conclude that they saw an "extraterrestrial craft", however I also don't reject the possibility

Call me "skeptical".

I do not reject it either but let's say that the evidence (or more likely the absence of conclusive evidence) is far from convincing in favor the extra-terrestrial theory

I am (very) skeptical when it comes to UFOs so I guess we're on the same page there.

 

[meg]

I just can't help but keep beating this dead horse, in case there are any wooers out there still thinking this might really be a picture of the "event". Note that the photo shows the old tower on the left and the new tower on the right.

I hope you'll forgive my crappy edits to this pic of the airport layout, where I have pointed out where the old tower, the new tower and concourse C are.

Note. In order to take the picture of the two towers, with the old one on the left, one would need to be facing AWAY from concourse C, which is where the alleged event occurred.



Note "PP" = picture point = my guess of the approximate area one would be in to get that shot

 

[Beth]

Just curious - the news article linked didn't provide detailed information:

How many people actually witnessed the event? 2? 10? 20?

Where were they located in proximity to one another?

If they were all located at approximately the same place, I think that would lend evidence to it being an optical illusion. If they saw it from various locations and angles, it would lend credence to it being a real phenomona of some sort. Did different witnesses independently claim that it went straight up vertically punching a hole in the cloud cover? That seems a very odd thing to happen or to be mistaken about.

 

[Dave1001]

Hunt, please tell me you don't buy into UFOs.

I believe in UFOs, at least until they're identified.

ETA: I see Hunster beat me too it.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Someone sees an object in the sky. He doesn't know for sure how far away it is nor how big it is. He therefore estimates to the best of his ability. He uses factors such as the cloud ceiling, strength and direction of natural illumination, atmospheric hazing and his natural ability to grossly judge distance using the focus of his eyes. When the object moves through the cloud ceiling he is able to further refine his estimates based on its apparent speed and time until it disappeared.

He therefore concludes that the object, to the best of his judgement, was x' in diameter and y' above the ground.

What exactly is the problem here?

The problem is that I don't trust this ability farther than I can spit, when he doesn't know what the object is.

What's the alternative? "I saw something. I don't know what it was, nor am I qualified to offer any information about it. It could have been an inch wide or two miles. It hovered between ten feet and half a mile from the ground. It may have been solid or vapourous. It may not have existed at all except in my own mind."

Now we're being honest with ourselves.

~~ Paul

 

[Hellbound]

Just curious - the news article linked didn't provide detailed information:

How many people actually witnessed the event? 2? 10? 20?

Where were they located in proximity to one another?

If they were all located at approximately the same place, I think that would lend evidence to it being an optical illusion. If they saw it from various locations and angles, it would lend credence to it being a real phenomona of some sort. Did different witnesses independently claim that it went straight up vertically punching a hole in the cloud cover? That seems a very odd thing to happen or to be mistaken about.

A good point. We need to know who saw it from where...were there peopel that shoudl have seen it that didn't, etc, etc, etc. If we could actually get some definitive viewpoints from different locations, we could make some rough estimations of a "target volume" it could have been in by combining the various viewing angles (without some definitive evidence, like photo or video, this will be a guestimate at best, however. It will place some reasonable limits on size and location, though).

Right now, as I stated, we barely have enough information to assume that something was seen, and even that is a mild stretch.

 

[baron]

I dismiss this readily because it's blatant ignorance. It's apparant that this is your guesses, guesses which simply reinforce my view that this was an argument from ignorance.

My guesses as to what? On how I would judge size and distance? OK, let's ignore your ignorant assumption that I don't know what I'm talking about, and look at the possibilites.

Let's say this disc was not actually between 6' and 24', as stated. What would you say the minimum size would be? I would say 3'; any less and the near-focus of the eyes would be obvious. Now, what would the maximum size be? Well, let's go crazy and say 1/2 mile. Would you now care to explain how a 3' disc or a 1/2 mile disc is any easier to explain than a 6' one or a 24' one?

But without knowing the initial location, speed, size, and direction his estimates cannot be accurate with any degree of certainty

Here you go again. "Accurate", "certainty". For the millionth time I never said his estimates were accurate, I simply defended his right to make estimates as best as he is able. How many more times?

The factors you would use are what most people would...

Yes, any reasonable person would. Thank you for proving my own point whilst believing you are proving yours.

And this is why I say it is immediately obvious his account is embellished. He had no accurate way of determining the size or distance to the object.

And again! Unbelievable.

If he wanted to describe it's shape, color, and apparent size and psoition, great.

Er, so what's all this then... (hint: it's the topic of this discussion)

All the witnesses said the object was dark gray and well defined in the overcast skies. They said the craft, estimated by different accounts to be 6 feet to 24 feet in diameter, did not display any lights.

Some said it looked like a rotating Frisbee, while others said it did not appear to be spinning. All agreed the object made no noise and it was at a fixed position in the sky, just below the 1,900-foot cloud deck, until shooting off into the clouds.

Saying "It's an alien spacecraft" does NOT provide any information as to what he saw.

Indeed not. That's why I have repeatedly said that we should rely on description, not interpretation. Why not read what I have posted instead of trolling?

He could not accurately identify it's speed or vectors. Yet he concludes it is an alien spacecraft? That is the influence of culture, and since the idea is in his head, his account immediately becomes suspect. His memory immediately becomes suspect, as its very likely that additional details will be added, coinciding with the alien spacecraft idea, as the story is remembered and retold.

Quite possibly. Is that a reason to dismiss everyone else's testimony, and indeed the entire incident?

Now, if you can quit throwing strawmen around everywhere:
and listen to actual arguments, we might get somewhere.

Feel free to present one, when you're ready.

If I were talking to a reasonable person, I'd be more concerned. This is simply more of your hypocrisy, though. You expect us to give credence to the "alien spacecraft" description of the mechanic, based only on his word with no evidence. Nice.

And finally you wreck your flimsy credibility by conclusively proving you are a troll. I have said with emphasis I do NOT believe it is an alien spacecraft. I have repeatedly said that we should NOT take evaulations of witnesses at face value, instead we should do your own investigations. In addition you conveniently ignore the fact it was a multiple witness event.

On top of being a sloppy thinker you are a troll and I shall not respond to any more of your lame posts.

 

[valis]

The distinction is not one that most skeptics accept:

Miracles have a certain "poofiness" about them - they are things that happen without reason, and always attributed to faith.

UFOs, if they do exist, are based on technology and science that's advanced further than our own. There is no "poof" to them.


Most often, "If they do exist," is not even considered in skeptical forums.

UFOs are unidentified; they could be anything, including someones imagination, a mis identified everyday physical object, a trick of the light, swamp gas, Venus, weather balloons or angels in chariots.

Even amongst the most die hard UFO believers there is no consensus that UFOs are physical space craft.

 

[baron]

You still don't see the irony here, do you?

We have someone claiming "alien craft!" on the basis of little to no evidence at all (there's barely enough evidence to conclude they saw something). A very small minority make the claims of liar or stoned. The rest discuss the possibilities more or less intelligently (with a bit of humor, which humans actually enjoy). You focus on these minority of posts, claiming we're all playing intellectual snobs, while situationg yourself firmly on top of the highest horse around and berating the entire board for the actions of a few posters. While talking about how the board paints all the alien-sighters with the same brush, you paint everyone here with a brush just as wide. You complain about us acting intellectually superior, while looking "down" on us from your apparently believed intellectual superiority. Your actions here are the hieght of hypocrisy, baron. Mote, plank, etc.

Oh, more trolling. I must have missed it. Read my posts and you will see I took great care NOT to use a broad brush with my criticism, always referring to "some people", not "everybody". Still, nothing more than I've learned to expect from you.

(And that is the last time I will reply - you're on ignore)

 

[valis]

I figure that if the little green men are smart enough to travel the billions of miles to Earth, they'd most likely say hi while they were here.

That is one argument I have never understood. Considering all the powers attributed to UFOs and their occupants I would consider it impossible to guess at their motavation or reasoning for anything.

Combine the fact that they would be advanced enough to do things we consider impossible; with the fact that they are a different species entirely (in most theories), how could we possibly make an intelligent guess at the 'why' of anything they would do?

 

[Hellbound]

baron:

I am heart-broken.

However, I specifically was referring to claims of alien spacecraft, as was the poster who discussed liars and stoned. Frankly, I would discount his testimoney, and I also would be highly skeptical of the accuracy of any of the other testimony. the specific gentleman's conclusion that it was an "alien spacecraft" brings his particular testimony into questions, because there is no way he could have made that determination (which was my argument from the beginning).

You, however, seem to think I'm arguing that all the testimony should be thrown out. I am not. I am arguing specifically about the ignorant who claim that they identified this object (whatever it was) as an alien spacecraft, something I've made clear. You keep defending their right to say it's an alien craft as if it's the most reasonalbe thing in the world...which you apparently now are retracting. I'm glad you did finally see the light.

That, and I also got intot his thread initially because of your blatant hypocrisy, which I also pointed out. Your response? Call me a troll and put me on ignore. I'll rest my case on that.

You are, however, the first to call me a troll.

ETA: And, just for clarification, I use the term ignorant in it's specific, technical meaning...not as insult. Ignorant, as in, lacking the knowledge. The factors you would use to estimate size and distance cannot give a figure that's useable. Thus, these figures shoudl not be considered as accurate when evaluating the witness accounts. And a witness who takes these inaccurate figures and leaps to the conclusion of "alien spacecraft" is making the formal logical error of argument from ignorance.

You keep making strawman fallcies, yourself. I have never stated we shoudl dismiss all witness testimony. I have never stated we should dismiss the entire incident. I have stated that those who believe they can postitively identify an alien spacecraft in the sky in low-light conditions and accurately determine it's size and distance are, by this simple declaration of facts no in evidence, showing themselves to be unreliable witnesses. There's a difference in saying "I couldn't identify it", saying "it could be aliens", and saying "It was a craft. It was not of this Earth."

Of course, you read my arguments with an eye to what you could attack me with, rather than what I actually stated.

 

[I less than three logic]

You are, however, the first to call me a troll.

Oh, oh. I want to be the second. I call dibs.

 

[Hellbound]

Oh, oh. I want to be the second. I call dibs.

*Huntsman smacks I<3 with a wet cod*

Have at it