UFO over O'Hare

[baron]

Re photos:

[FONT=Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif]These are only pictures to tell the story, they were not taken at the time of the sighting.
I guess I should say illustration of report. I'm not aware of any actual photos taken at the time.[/FONT]

So the photos were not hoaxed, per se, they were simply used to illustrate, based on what people say they saw. Shows how gullible some people can be, and how easily simple oberservations can lose credibility as a result of poor investigation and after-the-fact ludicrousness.

 

[baron]

I see...you insult others, then claim that you're the one being "picked-on". That way, you can continully dodge other's questions.

How cute.

For whatever reason, you feel a need to behave like a jerk, and fortunately, I don't put up with that kind of bull crap.

Here's a little secret...you won't be treated in a civil manner unless you behave in a civil manner...though by your over-reaction, I can see that you're pretty much hopeless...

In other words...I simply don't waste my time with people like you...

I apologise if you got the impression that I care one iota what you think of me. I am perfectly content to debate with all-comers, no matter what their attitude, and to ignore those who become repetitive and refuse to read my posts.

With that in mind, do you have any actual contribution to this thread or are you still having an ickle tantrum?

 

[JMA]

I'm a bit confuse here. I do understand that the pictures that we can see on some websites now are "illustrations". But if I understand the all case, they are some real pictures out there, just the people who are investigating the case don't want to show them yet.

Is that it, or am I completely lost in the wild?

 

[baron]

The fact that no one in the control towers saw it suggests that it wasn't visible from that angle, lending credence to it being a light effect.

Around 1630 a pilot made a comment on the radio about a circle or disc shapped object hovering over gate C-17 at the C concourse in Chicago. At frist we laughed to each other and then the same pilot said again on the radio that is was about 700feet agl (above ground level)...

...The radio irrupted with chatter about the object and the ATC controler that was handling ground traffic made a few smart comments about the alleged UFO siting above the C terminal.

I'm a bit confuse here. I do understand that the pictures that we can see on some websites now are "illustrations". But if I understand the all case, they are some real pictures out there, just the people who are investigating the case don't want to show them yet.

I don't think there are any photos. I suspect that there's nothing more can be obtained from this event.

 

[Fnord]

Are you really suggesting that your "translations" are in any way accurate?

No. They are opinions, and therefore only as accurate as the words they translate.

For example "Probably a few of them but probably not all of them". A group of people working for the same company in the same place at the same time. If you can find any such group where most of them don't know most of the others I will give you a cookie, so this is sensible assumption to make. I could take all your other ones apart in the same manner, but I'm lazy so I'll let you think it through yourself.

I stand by my opinions, although they might change when I see some real evidence that the alledged object was anything other than an aluminised mylar party ballon ... or a shared delusion.

It just gripes me when people go from vague generalities and unsubstantiated assumptions straight to "established fact" and "common sense" (which isn't so common) ... just like the religionists.

Come to think of it, I've seen as much religious fervor at a M.U.F.O.N. convention as I've seen in the local A.M.E. Church services!

That's it! UFO-logy is a religion!

A few unverifiable "miracles" witnessed and reported only by a select few (in this case, about twelve ... apostles?), and taken as fact by faith alone! Those witnesses did not just see a U.F.O., they saw a manifestation of their messiah!

"And in those days the prophet Woo did spaketh unto the masses, saying 'All hail Zarkon the magnificent, and his prophet Van Daniken, for in the final days Zarkon, in his unfathomable wisdom, shall rain flaming fire from his chariot upon the unbelievers, sparing only the most nubile of maidens and all the malt liquor in Chicago...'"

Gack! Spare me.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

 

[R.A.F.]

I am perfectly content to debate with all-comers, no matter what their attitude, and to ignore those who become repetitive and refuse to read my posts.

That's fine...in post #110 I asked you for an explanation. Will you now be providing that explanation??

 

[Hellbound]

Another point to take into consideration:

The cloud cover was at 1900 feet. Unless the witnesses were directly below the object, this extends our possible range. If they saw it at a 45 degree angle, for example, that means the object could have been up to 2600 feet or so distant. 3800 feet for a 30 degree angle. And so on and so forth. 1900 feet is not our upper limit on distance.

 

[meg]

I found a couple of interesting articles about mirages caused by temperature inversions. Perhaps this phenomenon might be a possible explanation for some UFO sightings:

http://www.astronomycafe.net/weird/lights/mirUFO.htm

http://www.islandnet.com/~see/weather/elements/mirage1.htm

Out of curiousity, after reading about that I searched the archives of the tribs weather reports:

Chicago Tribune - Chicago, Ill.
Author: Tom Skilling
Date: Nov 8, 2006
Start Page: 13
Section: Metro
Text Word Count: 265

Abstract (Document Summary)

WITHIN 3,000-FOOT DEEP MOIST LAYER TUESDAY Fog shrouds Chicago metro area a second consecutive morning OBSERVED TUESDAY DuPage County Airport visibilities MIDNT. 6 A.M. NOON 6 P.M. Fog and haze trapped beneath temperature inversion: Lowest Chicago area visibilities* O'Hare 1/2 mile Midway 1/2 mile Aurora 1/4 mile Joliet 1/4 mile Waukegan 1/4 mile DeKalb 1/4 mile Rockford 1 3/4 m. *Statute miles AVERAGE RELATIVE HUMIDITY 90% AVERAGE WIND SPEED 4.8 m.p.h. - See microfilm for complete graphic.

Looking at this satellite image of Concourse C, I see that C17 (the gate where all this allegedly happened) is quite close to some kind of round object on the concourse roof. Do you suppose that the temperature inversion could have created a mirage which made it appear as though that round thingee was hovering above the concourse?

I realize that's just a WAG, - but do you suppose that *could be* what happened?

 

[Astrophotographer]

Looking at this satellite image of Concourse C, I see that C17 (the gate where all this allegedly happened) is quite close to some kind of round object on the concourse roof. Do you suppose that the temperature inversion could have created a mirage which made it appear as though that round thingee was hovering above the concourse?

I realize that's just a WAG, - but do you suppose that *could be* what happened?

Probably not. However, since we are talking about UFOs, anything (including interstellar space travel) is possible.

I notice that there are claims of photographs being thrown about. However, I doubt they will show much. If the were cameras on cell phones, they would have been low resolution - maybe 1.3 MP - without an optical zoom. This means were are going to see nothing more than a small dot against the sky. The best one could hope for would be two different photographs from two different locations showing the object. This could allow triangulation and accurate determination of height, speed, and size.

UFO groups can't stand to hold back when it comes to the press. I doubt that any convincing images exist otherwise, we would have seem them published already. At best, as I stated, any images are nondescript dots. The group that is apparently investigating this case, NARCAP, is not, IMO, a very thorough group. Despite claiming they were investigating the 2004 mexican AF video, they apparently gave up on it once the explanation had been produced by several groups (including some good discussion on JREF that pretty much nailed the explanation). They promised an eventual report but the last time I checked it wasn't on their website (I got the excuse that the video lacked a chain of custody and that it was outside the US and therefore NARCAP wasn't going to pursue the matter). So, IMO, NARCAP is going to do the UFO two-step and claim it wasn't a balloon, it wasn't an aircraft, and nothing of this earth can make a hole in the clouds and disappear, therefore it was an unknown (with the implication that it was alien technology).

 

[baron]

That's fine...in post #110 I asked you for an explanation. Will you now be providing that explanation??

But of course.

It was the mechanic's opinion. He concluded it was a craft.
2 assumptions. (that it was an actual physical object, and that it was a "craft".)

He made two presumptions. In view of what he claims to have witnessed they don't strike me as being way-out or in any way outrageous. In his place I might not have made those same presumptions and I gather you wouldn't either (so you say). That doesn't make his assessment worthless, it simply differs to that which perhaps more critical thinkers might supply. I don't recall this mechanic ever claiming to be some kind of towering intellectual, he appears to be a normal bloke who saw something he can't explain.

He also concluded that it resembled no earth-based craft he had witnessed.
Another assumption...

That sounds like a fact to me. He compared memories of the craft he had witnessed with this object and did not find a match.

In an admittedly large leap of logic he appeared to suggest it was an extra-terrestrial craft.
...and another assumption...

I agree, but as I said before, why are you concerned with his interpretation? It's only natural for people to speculate. If you don't agree with his deduction, ignore it. Concentrating on these peripheral issues and ignoring the (allegedly) factual testimony is a favoured method of arch-skeptics to divert attention away from the fact they don't know the answers and are afraid to admit it.

Not a conclusion I personally agree with but I don't find any difficulty in understanding his reasoning...
You understand his reasoning?? What reasoning??? He's made a number of assumptions...he's made those assumptions without any supportive evidence, and you "understand"??

"Supportive evidence"? He's a guy who works at an airport, not a scientist in a lab! If you personally aren't prepared to accept anecdotal evidence then that's fine, up to you. Just please stop ridiculing the people who report their experiences and - horror of horrors - maybe even have the gall to jump to illogical conclusions.

Of course, this guy and his colleagues might be liars. They might be (and very probably are) mistaken in their conclusions about this being a solid craft. Only more evidence will tell. However, I am perfectly happy, in the absence of such evidence, to say "I don't know" and leave it at that.

 

[meg]

Probably not. However, since we are talking about UFOs, anything (including interstellar space travel) is possible.

Why not? If that thing is one of those round air vent things you see on many building rooftops, a reflection of it might even be seen to spin.

 

[baron]

Why not? If that thing is one of those round air vent things you see on many building rooftops, a reflection of it might even be seen to spin.

It's an interesting idea although I'm tempted to discount it because AFAIK mirages occur at very acute viewing angles, normally reflecting objects at or beyond the horizon. I'm not sure this very localised event fits that pattern.

 

[meg]

Oh! I found a picture of the very concourse and gate we're talking about here:

http://www.airchive.com/airline pics/CHICAGO ORD SUM04/*UA GATES-2

Looks like the round thing has a bunch of equipment on top of it. A weather station perhaps.

 

[Marc L]

Here are seemingly two independant pictures of the UFO. Too good to be true?. If these are true pics of the object, then the case may be worth paying attention.

My thoughts on the photos:

The one on the top of the page looks strangely familiar. I think I've seen that photo before.

The second one looks odd. Notice how the foreground (the airplane and the towers) are crisp and clear, while the object is all fuzzy. To me, it looks like it was photoshopped in from another ufo photo.

Conclusions: Both really bad fakes.

Marc

 

[firecoins]

your obviously taking yourself a way bit too seriously my man. take a deep breath and relax. chill out. This is a UFO report. All you can do is read the article. Unless you have more info than the article which I don't, stop making unreasionable demands.

Let me highlight the holes.



"Implied..." == "I assumed..."
"It is inferred" == "I infer that..." ~~ "I guess that..."
"It is possible" == "Better than a 0% chance that..."
"I assume" == "I guess that..."
"Presumably" == "It's a likely guess that..."
"Probably" == "Better than a 50% chance" ~~ "I guess that..."
"Apparently" == "It looks as if..."
"Seems to be" == "It looks like..."
"Should be..." == "I think it should be..."
"Hopefully not..." == "I hope not..."

Sorry, but you cite no real or definitive emperical values, only opinions and vague generalities. This is one of the roots of conspiracy theory. As such, it is irrelevant to finding the facts.

And what a wonderful thing it is for diseminating woo-woo articles fit for a tabloid. The only thing missing is the "Un-named expert witness" or "Confidential source" to clinch the category and win the Hokum prize.

W H E R E A R E T H E F R E A K I N G F A C T S ? ! !

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

 

[Marc L]

It's 1,900 feet in the air, but it's "over Gate C17"?


Now it's up at 1,900 feet but "over head C Terminal."

~~ Paul

Um, how is that inconsistent? Gate C17 would be at C Terminal, wouldn't it?

Marc

 

[R.A.F.]

I am perfectly happy, in the absence of such evidence, to say "I don't know" and leave it at that.

But that's not what you posted...you posted...

Not a conclusion I personally agree with but I don't find any difficulty in understanding his reasoning...

So you understand his uncritical reasoning?? If that's not what you meant, then explain what you did mean.

 

[I less than three logic]

I agree, but as I said before, why are you concerned with his interpretation? It's only natural for people to speculate. If you don't agree with his deduction, ignore it. Concentrating on these peripheral issues and ignoring the (allegedly) factual testimony is a favoured method of arch-skeptics to divert attention away from the fact they don't know the answers and are afraid to admit it.

I don't think it is his interpretation of what he saw that people are concerned about, but rather the "(allegedly) factual testimony", more precisely the notion it should be accepted it as such. The only fact that can be concluded from his statement is that he appears to believe he saw something. All the other information provided is not factual; the distance, size, speed, the solidity of the object, and so on are all speculation as there were no means for him to discern these things. He could have claimed it was a blimp (of unknown size) and I would still doubt his "factual testimony" of the distance, size, speed, and so forth of the object he saw because there is no way for him to know these.

Take the distance for example, to triangulate the height or distance to an object you must have at least 3 things. You need to know were the point directly below the object is (to get a 90^o angle), the distance from that point to you (for the length of one leg of the triangle), and the angle you're viewing the object at. With those three you can calculate how high the object is, and also how far away the object is from you. Once you know the distance from you you can calculate the size of the object. This also works in reverse, if you know the size of the object you can calculate the distance it is from you. Once you have the distance as one leg of the triangle, you can use the angle at which you're viewing the object to deduce the angle needed to point straight at the ground to form your right angle (triangles add up to 180^o so if your view at 30^o the other angle is 60^o), and with the two angles and the hypotenuse you can calculate the height of the object. However, since this was a UFO, unknown being a key word here, he didn't know the size of the object so he couldn't deduce the distance. Since he knew neither the distance nor the size of the object there was no way for him to figure out either of them. Thus, his testimony contains no facts, just unfounded speculations.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Um, how is that inconsistent? Gate C17 would be at C Terminal, wouldn't it?

I didn't say it was inconsistent. I was chuckling at the idea that an object at 1,900 feet could be thought of as begin over a particular gate. I say it was over gate C16, not C17!

~~ Paul

 

[baron]

I am perfectly happy, in the absence of such evidence, to say "I don't know" and leave it at that.

But that's not what you posted...you posted...

Not a conclusion I personally agree with but I don't find any difficulty in understanding his reasoning...

So you understand his uncritical reasoning?? If that's not what you meant, then explain what you did mean.

I don't know what your point is. Was what I wrote unclear?

• I am happy to say "I don't know" because in this instance, I don't
• I have no difficult in understanding the reasoning by which this mechanic derived his conclusion
• I disagree with the mechanic's conclusion that it must have been a solid, alien craft

I literally don't know what else to say.

...Since he knew neither the distance nor the size of the object there was no way for him to figure out either of them. Thus, his testimony contains no facts, just unfounded speculations.

Yes, I know, and I agree that his estimate was just that, an estimate. I've dealt with this many times. I do not want to appear any more confrontational than I have already been accused of being but please, read what I have written concerning your point.

Also, my question (below) remains unanswered...

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?