UFO over O'Hare

I am a skeptic. I believe life exists on other planets far away. I do not believe we have been visited by extraterrestrial life. I do however have often wondered the following question and wonder if any of you have thought about it?

If these UFO sightings are some kind of illusion or hoax people have made up over the years, why is it the same saucer-shaped craft we see in photos? This kind of stuff has been going on since before the 1950s and if I were to come up with a claim of a UFO from space coming to Earth I would probably imagine a more "aerodynamic" looking craft with a more familiar shape (like a jet aircraft or something which looks like it could actually fly). A rotating disc shape, especially in the 1950s would not be convincing to me as a craft which would move up and down, turn, and propel itself through our atmosphere. Yet it seems throughout the years this is the only shape mentioned in UFO sightings. Doesn't this seem odd?

From this page at CSI: Mass Delusions and Hysterias

First Flying Saucer Wave, 1947
On June 24, 1947, Kenneth Arnold was piloting his private plane near the Cascade mountains in Washington state when he saw what appeared to be nine glittering objects flying in echelon-like formation near Mount Rainier. He kept the objects in sight for about three minutes before they traveled south over Mount Adams and were lost to view (Arnold 1950; Arnold and Palmer 1952; Gardner 1988; Clark 1998, 139-143).
Worried that he may have observed guided missiles from a foreign power, Arnold eventually flew to Pendleton, Oregon, where he tried reporting what he saw to the FBI office there. But the office was closed, so he went to the offices of The East Oregonian newspaper. After listening to Arnold's story, journalist Bill Bequette produced a report for the Associated Press. It is notable that at this point, Arnold had described the objects as crescent-shaped, referring only to their movement as "like a saucer would if you skipped it across the water" (Gardner 1957, 56; Story 1980, 25; Sachs 1980, 207-208). However, the Associated Press account describing Arnold's "saucers" appeared in over 150 newspapers.
The AP report filed by Bequette was the proto-article from which the term "flying saucer" was created by headline writers on June 25 and 26, 1947 (Strentz 1970). Of key import was Bequette's use of the term "saucer-like" in describing Arnold's sighting. Bequette's use of the word "saucer" provided a motif for the worldwide wave of flying saucer sightings during the summer of 1947, and other waves since. There are a few scattered historical references to disc-shaped objects, but no consistent pattern emerges until 1947, with Arnold's sighting. There have only been a handful of occasions prior to 1947 that a witness has actually used the word "saucer" to describe mysterious aerial objects. Hence, the global 1947 flying saucer wave can be regarded as a media-generated collective delusion unique to the twentieth century.

Also see http://skepdic.com/saucers.html where you find:
The fact that so many UFO and alien sightings conform to rather standard depictions is taken by some as evidence that the observers are not mistaken. They must be seeing the same things. It is more likely that they see what they see because of their expectations, which are based on stereotypes created largely by the mass media. In this respect, and maybe some others as well, UFO an alien sightings might be compared to Santa Claus sightings.

BTW, great work Meg, on your contributions to this thread! Are you some kind of airport investigator? ;)
 
Spare me. You posted a sarcastic diatribe to which you pompously demanded response. Repost in a civil manner and I will reply.

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...
 
Thanks, Mr Stick! Excellent article!

No, I'm not an airport investigator. Mostly, I'm just a good googler.
 
Interesting discussion but I think there is a lot of information missing. However, we can conclude two things so far:

1) It has been pretty much figured out that the photo showing the two towers is a fake.

2) The estimates made by witnesses of what they saw really can not be considered accurate. UFOlogists, who normally gather this data love to talk about sizes in feet and never discuss angular sizes/speeds. This is better data. Perhaps comparing the object to the size (not brightness) of the moon might be a better grasp of what might be seen. In fact, one investigator did get an angular estimate:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/updates/2006/nov/m15-006.shtml

One can read the raw report here:

http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/053/S53541.html

Note that a quarter at arms length is about 1-2 degrees. Additionally, an object 24 feet across from 1900 feet is about 0.7 degrees in size. If the object was at the estimated 700 feet (how did they get that number?), the angular size is close to 2 degrees.

So, we might be able to conclude that the witness saw an object about 1 to 4 times the size of the moon, which really is not that big when you look at the entire sky. It was a gray disc/circle against a gray sky, was visible for about two minutes, and it went up into the clouds really fast leaving an apparent hole behind that quickly disappeared.

I don't know what it was but I can guess based on the testimony. Call me a debunker but it sounds too much like a balloon of some kind.
 
Last edited:
Sure ... but what are the FACTS?

1.0) Exactly how many people witnessed and/or reported the event first hand?
1.1) Were any of them trained observers?
1.2) Were they tested for intoxicants? Hallucinogens?
1.3) Were each of their stories recorded before they had a chance to discuss the event with each other and/or with outsiders?
1.4) Were they all of one group?
1.5) Did each person have previous knowledge of any or all of the others?
1.6) Do any of the persons have a history of emotional disturbances or recent traumatic experiences?

2.0) Were any photographs taken?
2.1) By whom?
2.2) With what equipment?
2.3) Under what conditions and settings?
2.4) Is the equipment in good working order?
2.5) Are the operators of the equipment trained and qualified to do so?
2.6) Do the operators of the recording equipment have histories of fraudulent reporting?

3.0) Was the event independently verified?
3.1) Did anything show up on radar at the time and place in question?
3.2) Were any unusual electromagnetic events reported in the area and time frame in question?

Just the facts, please.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-


PS: I'm inclined to go along with Astrophotographer and GUESS that it was a balloon of some sort; likely one of those aluminised mylar party balloons. I can't be certain, but that's the way I'd bet. -F-
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Huntster
Okay.

Several dozen rather than one.

84 instead of 12.

What do you think of this?

Mass hysteria???

I don't think so:

....It has been alleged that the fact that an unspecified "miracle" had been predicted in advance, the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied nature of the observers as including both skeptics and believers alike, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any causative factor, all reasonably preclude the theory of a mass hallucination. That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometers away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.....

Originally Posted by Huntster

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.

There's a scoreboard?
 

I am not very familiar with the miracle of the sun stuff and would need to do more research on it before I can comment further. However that being said

....It has been alleged that the fact that an unspecified "miracle" had been predicted in advance,

Alleged? by whom?

the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied nature of the observers as including both skeptics and believers alike,

Someone polled the crowd?

the sheer numbers of people present,

How do we know how many people present actually saw something?

and the lack of any causative factor, all reasonably preclude the theory of a mass hallucination. That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometers away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.....

If the sun really "danced in the sky" then either the earth was thrown off it's orbit, or all law of physics and gravity were momentarily suspended an the solar system disrupted. If that was the case then I'm pretty sure that it would have been noticed pretty much outside of 18 kilometers! ..... Hummm I don't know but call me skeptical :D


There's a scoreboard?

Hopefully not or I'm in big trouble:)
 
1.0) Exactly how many people witnessed and/or reported the event first hand?
1.1) Were any of them trained observers?
1.1) Were any of them trained observers?
unknown but the article implied a dozen or so. A group of United Airline employees.Since they were airline employees, it is inferred some may be experts in aircraft to varying extents.

1.2) Were they tested for intoxicants? Hallucinogens?
They were airline employees. On the record, no. Off the record, it is possible.

1.3) Were each of their stories recorded before they had a chance to discuss the event with each other and/or with outsiders?
I assume they talked with each other. The FAA seems to have a report of it.

1.4) Were they all of one group?
They were United airline employees. So yes.

1.5) Did each person have previous knowledge of any or all of the others?
presumably. It is possible they did not know everyone else in the group but probably knew some of the others.

1.6) Do any of the persons have a history of emotional disturbances or recent traumatic experiences?
Probably a few of them but probably not all of them.

2.0) Were any photographs taken?
2.1) By whom?
Apparently there is 1 or 2 that seem to be fake. If this occurred at an airport there should be more than 1 or 2. There should be video footage from security cameras.

2.2) With what equipment?
2.3) Under what conditions and settings?
2.4) Is the equipment in good working order?
2.5) Are the operators of the equipment trained and qualified to do so?
There should be secutiy cameras, radar and weather equipment, none of which have been released. Probably because they caught nothing.

2.6) Do the operators of the recording equipment have histories of fraudulent reporting?
Hopefully not!:eek:
3.0) Was the event independently verified?
nope!

3.1) Did anything show up on radar at the time and place in question?
3.2) Were any unusual electromagnetic events reported in the area and time frame in question?
Nope!
 
Last edited:
....It has been alleged that the fact that an unspecified "miracle" had been predicted in advance,

Alleged? by whom?

I don't know about anybody else, but I'll "allege" it.

Quote:
the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied nature of the observers as including both skeptics and believers alike,

Someone polled the crowd?

As far as I know, not "scientifically".

But, then, "scientific" polls aren't good for much, either.

Quote:
the sheer numbers of people present,

How do we know how many people present actually saw something?

I don't know.

I guess you had to be there:

On October 13, 1917, the final in the series of the apparitions of 1917, a crowd believed to be approximately 70,000 in number[3], including newspaper reporters and photographers, gathered at the Cova da Iría in response to reports of the children's prior claims that on that day a miracle would occur "so that all may believe".[1] It rained heavily that day, yet, countless observers reported that the clouds broke, revealing the sun as an opaque disk spinning in the sky and radiating various colors of light upon the surroundings, then appearing to detach itself from the sky and plunge itself towards the earth in a zigzag pattern, finally returning to its normal place, and leaving the people's once wet clothing now completely dry. The event is known as the "Miracle of the Sun".[4].

Columnist Avelino de Almeida of O Século (Portugal's most influential newspaper, which was pro-government in policy and avowedly anti-clerical)[1], reported the following "Before the astonished eyes of the crowd, whose aspect was biblical as they stood bare-headed, eagerly searching the sky, the sun trembled, made sudden incredible movements outside all cosmic laws-the sun 'danced' according to the typical expression of the people."[5] Eye specialist Dr. Domingos Pinto Coelho, writing for the newspaper Ordem reported "The sun, at one moment surrounded with scarlet flame, at another aureoled in yellow and deep purple, seemed to be in an exceeding fast and whirling movement, at times appearing to be loosened from the sky and to be approaching the earth, strongly radiating heat".[6] The special reporter for the October 17, 1917 edition of the Lisbon daily, O Dia, reported the following, "...the silver sun, enveloped in the same gauzy grey light, was seen to whirl and turn in the circle of broken clouds...The light turned a beautiful blue, as if it had come through the stained-glass windows of a cathedral, and spread itself over the people who knelt with outstretched hands...people wept and prayed with uncovered heads, in the presence of a miracle they had awaited. The seconds seemed like hours, so vivid were they."[7]

There is no question that something significant happened there and then. It was reported in newspapers all around the world at the time.

I suppose this is the place to go to find someone who might try to deny the event.

Quote:
and the lack of any causative factor, all reasonably preclude the theory of a mass hallucination. That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometers away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria.....

If the sun really "danced in the sky" then either the earth was thrown off it's orbit, or all law of physics and gravity were momentarily suspended an the solar system disrupted. If that was the case then I'm pretty sure that it would have been noticed pretty much outside of 18 kilometers! .....

That's what would be called a scientific fact.

This was not a scientific event.

Hummm I don't know but call me skeptical

Yeah. That's the natural view.

However, a miracle was promised, lots came to see it, and they saw one.

Imagine that...................
 
Last edited:
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?

That smacks of christians who tell me that they don't attempt to answer for what god would do, because he is so far superior to us that we can't begin to know.

I'm just working on the simple fact that curiosity exists in all even semi-intelligent species and that a hyper-intelligent species is likely be at least inquisitive about humans to the extent that they do as we would and drop in to say hi. Humans send messages and spacecraft in the hope that we may meet up with another species and I'm assuming that aliens would act the same way.

You're right, though, I might be completely wrong and they may well have taken a quick look and thought, "what a horrible species, we're out of here"

It just doesn't add up. If they only wanted to learn about us, no doubt their technology would enable them to do it without the need to spend 30 seconds over O'Hare Airport.

Then again, maybe they were Teasers.
 
Let me highlight the holes.

unknown but the article implied a dozen or so. A group of United Airline employees.Since they were airline employees, it is inferred some may be experts in aircraft to varying extents.
They were airline employees. On the record, no. Off the record, it is possible.

I assume they talked with each other. The FAA seems to have a report of it.

They were United airline employees. So yes.

presumably. It is possible they did not know everyone else in the group but probably knew some of the others.


Probably a few of them but probably not all of them.


Apparently there is 1 or 2 that seem to be fake. If this occurred at an airport there should be more than 1 or 2. There should be video footage from security cameras.

There should be secutiy cameras, radar and weather equipment, none of which have been released. Probably because they caught nothing.


Hopefully not!:eek:

nope!


Nope!

"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 ? ! ! :mad:

-Fnord of Dyscordia-
 
Last edited:
You're right, though, I might be completely wrong and they may well have taken a quick look and thought, "what a horrible species, we're out of here"

Then again, maybe they were Teasers.

That's the most plausible theory I've seen yet. Only one thing: what about all the truly amazing wildlife on the planet? (Surely, they're worth a second look!) Maybe they were watching a flock of geese?

And thanks for the wonderful link!
 
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.
 
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?

We can make an intelligent guess because we assume that a species intelligent enough to cross interstellar distances is not stupid enough to do so for no reason. The chance that anyone/thing would waste all that time and energy simply in order to say "Well, here we are. Right, time to go home." is much lower than the chance that they would be interested in actually having a look around once they're here.

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 ? ! ! :mad:

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

Are you really suggesting that your "translations" are in any way accurate? 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.
 
Just for the heck of it, I reposted this in a woo board discussion of the UFO incident:

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"

[snip]

Note To Self: Objectivity can be suspended if one really WANTS to believe.
You can demolish that hypothesis by a simple argument: The photo from wiki was taken with a Sony Cybershot, which is a handheld camera in all the variants I'm aware of. You can see that in the jpeg metadata (EXIF). No flash was used, normal exposure, focal lenght 21.0 and compression mode 6.

sony-cybershot-dsc-w100.jpg


Note also that the EXIF data has been deleted from both "UFO" photos :rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom