• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

UFO in O'Hare - Did they ever figure this thing out?

mikeb768

Muse
mikeb768
Joined
Jul 10, 2012
Messages
714
I remember talking to a coworker about this back in 2006, when it was in the news. At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17. According to one witness, nearby observers gasped as the object shot through the clouds at high velocity, leaving a clear blue hole in the cloud layer.

2006 O'Hare International Airport UFO sighting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting

UFO CNN Story Illinois O'Hare Sighting 9-7-2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arxrTo5OfHA

O'Hare UFO Leaked News Footage seconds before Broadcast
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqvmX-XW1HA#t=116

The History Channel in 2009 aired an episode titled Aliens at the Airport in which they reconstructed the incident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jRa1vMs8zQ

So have these guys traveled all the way across the galaxy just to check out the Chicago airport layout, or is it that O'Hare International just happens to serve both the best and the cheapest Lattes in the entire Milky Way? And lastly where is Fox Mulder when you need him?
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
I remember talking to a coworker about this back in 2006, when it was in the news. At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17. According to one witness, nearby observers gasped as the object shot through the clouds at high velocity, leaving a clear blue hole in the cloud layer.
Click to expand...


And in 2006 at a major airport not one person got a picture of it? Yeah I'm with ehcks on this one.
 
catsmate1 said:
Yep. Lots of wild speculation, no evidence of anything.
Click to expand...

I think you mean lots of eye witness testimony, but no evidence. So this thing was said to have hovered in the same place for between 5 to 20 minutes and no one thought whip out their cellphone and take a picture?
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
I remember talking to a coworker about this back in 2006, when it was in the news. At approximately 16:15 CST on Tuesday November 7, 2006, federal authorities at Chicago O'Hare International Airport received a report that a group of twelve airport employees were witnessing a metallic, saucer-shaped craft hovering over Gate C-17. According to one witness, nearby observers gasped as the object shot through the clouds at high velocity, leaving a clear blue hole in the cloud layer.

2006 O'Hare International Airport UFO sighting
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O'Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting

UFO CNN Story Illinois O'Hare Sighting 9-7-2006
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arxrTo5OfHA

O'Hare UFO Leaked News Footage seconds before Broadcast
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqvmX-XW1HA#t=116

The History Channel in 2009 aired an episode titled Aliens at the Airport in which they reconstructed the incident.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jRa1vMs8zQ

So have these guys traveled all the way across the galaxy just to check out the Chicago airport layout, or is it that O'Hare International just happens to serve both the best and the cheapest Lattes in the entire Milky Way? And lastly where is Fox Mulder when you need him?
Click to expand...
Lies, nothing is cheaper at an airport!:)
 
The best summary is this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2222581#post2222581

Most of the rest of the discussion is about the pictures, which were clearly shown to be faked (even the site originally hosting them called them an "illustration of the event"), and various anomalies that could match what was seen.

Edit: Oh, there was also a discussion of the "lots of eyewitness". In reality, there were 12, with only 2 giving any sort of details that could be examined. 12 or 2, out of how many thousands of people at O'Hare at any given moment, many of whom are actually paid to pay attention to the sky? Yeah.
 
Last edited:
It depends on what you mean by "figured out." I know it's been pointed out a million times here, but the "U" in "UFO" does, after all, stand for "unidentified," not "unidentifiable." This means that, for a rational person, a wide range of explanations is perfectly acceptable for what may resolve "unidentified"; whereas, for the die-hard UFOnut, it can only be "grays from Rigel in a warp-driven saucer bent on butt-probing the entire human race," or something within that narrow range. To them, it's not "figured out" until it's identified as what they want (need?) it to be; it's all or nothing.
 
Hokulele said:
Oh, there was also a discussion of the "lots of eyewitness". In reality, there were 12, with only 2 giving any sort of details that could be examined. 12 or 2, out of how many thousands of people at O'Hare at any given moment, many of whom are actually paid to pay attention to the sky? Yeah.
Click to expand...

It reminds me of the UFO that was filmed hovering over the Kings Dominion amusement park in Virginia back in 2009. An amusement park in the middle of the day, and one person filmed it. There were claims that it was a smoke ring generated by an artificial volcano at one of the rides, but looking at the video, it looked more like a water droplet on a pane of glass a short distance in front of the camera.
 
I watched the History Channel program. What a load of crap!

They harp on the FAA for not investigating but in fact they did. They talked to the ATC personnel and reviewed the radar data (they say this in the program).

They claim it was a safety issue (and the FAA was wrong) but fail to say the reason it wasn't considered one is because no physical object was detected.

They keep asking how something could violate the airspace undetected and the FAA wouldn't investigate but, there is no evidence anything did.

They make a "test flight" that proves the radar should have picked it up.

They try to explain how this could be there and not be detected. Then blame the FAA for not investigating this because it's a safety problem.

The part that got me the most was the calculations they did to show how much energy this thing had. The 8000' column it created through the clouds by heat alone but never considered what it's physical mass would do to the air as it passed.

The show was entertaining. :)
 
Hokulele said:
The best summary is this post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2222581#post2222581

Most of the rest of the discussion is about the pictures, which were clearly shown to be faked (even the site originally hosting them called them an "illustration of the event"), and various anomalies that could match what was seen.

Edit: Oh, there was also a discussion of the "lots of eyewitness". In reality, there were 12, with only 2 giving any sort of details that could be examined. 12 or 2, out of how many thousands of people at O'Hare at any given moment, many of whom are actually paid to pay attention to the sky? Yeah.
Click to expand...


That's got to be the one of the worst summaries ever. "Our theory on this is that it was a weather phenomenon," Cory said. "That night was a perfect atmospheric condition in terms of low (cloud) ceiling and a lot of airport lights. When the lights shine up into the clouds, sometimes you can see funny things."

Jon Hilkevitch a Transportation Writer for the Chicago tribune says that he has spoken to weather and astronomy experts and they describe the FAA's response as "bunk" (this is another way of saying BS). Link

Who is Cory btw, and was he able to provide a name of the phenomenon which he believed to be occurring in this case? And if he was not able to identify this so called phenomenon by name then maybe he should consider naming it after himself, I mean why not.

A weather phenomenon which is able to punch a hole through approximately 8000 feet of cloud cover, yeah were going to need a name for this. Link
 
Last edited:
mikeb768 said:
That's got to be the one of the worst summaries ever. "Our theory on this is that it was a weather phenomenon," Cory said. "That night was a perfect atmospheric condition in terms of low (cloud) ceiling and a lot of airport lights. When the lights shine up into the clouds, sometimes you can see funny things."

Jon Hilkevitch a Transportation Writer for the Chicago tribune says that he has spoken to weather and astronomy experts and they describe the FAA's response as "bunk" (this is another way of saying BS). Link

Who is Cory btw, and was he able to provide a name the phenomenon which he believed to be occurring in this case? And if he was not able to identify this so called phenomenon by name then maybe he should consider naming it after himself, I mean why not.

A weather phenomenon which is able to punch a hole through approximately 8000 feet of cloud cover, yeah were going to need a name for this. Link
Click to expand...
What should the FAA had done?

They reviewed the radar data(found nothing). Interviewed the tower and ATC staff (also followed protocol and found nothing).

Should they keep looking until they solve every mystery sighting they get?

As far as I'm concerned, If radar did not pick up a hard object it's of no concern to the safety of our planes. FAA did their job.
 
DGM said:
What should the FAA had done?

They reviewed the radar data(found nothing). Interviewed the tower and ATC staff (also followed protocol and found nothing).

Should they keep looking until they solve every mystery sighting they get?

As far as I'm concerned, If radar did not pick up a hard object it's of no concern to the safety of our planes. FAA did their job.
Click to expand...

You do realize that there currently exist a number of aircraft which have the ability to evade radar, and such objects still pose a serious risk for other flying objects. So I think that most people would agree that the FAA should try their best to resolve this. Regardless of if it was little grey men, a flying object built by a foreign government, or even one of our own for that matter.
 
mikeb768 said:
You do realize that there currently exist a number of aircraft which have the ability to evade radar, and such objects still pose a serious risk for other flying objects. So I think that most people would agree that the FAA should try their best to resolve this. Regardless of if it was little grey men, a flying object built by a foreign government, or even one of our own for that matter.
Click to expand...
None of these things evade sight. They investigated to the point they could.

What else should they have done? There was never any indication of danger to aircraft or loss of separation. (the aircraft itself would have detected it).
 
mikeb768 said:
A weather phenomenon which is able to punch a hole through approximately 8000 feet of cloud cover, yeah were going to need a name for this. Link
Click to expand...

And this. Explain how this can be true as observed and not violate the laws of science. Or is that part of the mystery?
 
mikeb768 said:
You do realize that there currently exist a number of aircraft which have the ability to evade radar, and such objects still pose a serious risk for other flying objects. So I think that most people would agree that the FAA should try their best to resolve this. Regardless of if it was little grey men, a flying object built by a foreign government, or even one of our own for that matter.
Click to expand...
But as there was ZERO evidence it was any of those things and you must also realise that sometimes people's perception makes mistakes and they see things that aren't really there (A much higher probability in this case)... There was nothing to investigate. The FAA reached the only sensible conclusion. No evidence was found, no witness report was able to be verified, no damage was caused and no physical trace left, no video, no RADAR, no photo, no nothing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom