UFO over O'Hare

Fallstreak Holes and Subsuns

Professor Bohren in his second response declined to speculate on the O’Hare event, but offered some interesting scientific insights into cloud holes and other alleged “UFO” related phenomena:

It is very difficult for me to speculate on something for which there are
no good observations. It is not uncommon for me to get a query from
someone saying that they saw a light in the sky: What was it? When I
press for details I rarely get them. This then gets distorted into
"Scientist baffled by inexplicable phenomenon." There is a distinction
between inexplicable and unexplained, but, unfortunately, not often
made…

As I noted, holes in clouds, even spectacular ones, are not mysterious.
And by holes in clouds I do not mean just breaks in clouds on partly
cloud days.

Fallstreak holes really get your attention because the holes can appear
to have been cut out with a cookie cutter. Every so often Weatherwise
magazine (and Weather, the British equivalent) will publish a spectacular
photograph of a fallstreak hole.

Use Google to search on fallstreak holes. The first entry I got was a
collection of great photos, assembled by Australians, of fallstreak holes
all over the world. Now I am not saying that what was observed is a
fallstreak hole, only that strange holes in clouds are not the work of
extraterrials.

The folks who use the term Unidentified Flying Object are, in a sense,
already biased. How the hell do they know that the "object" (which in
fact may be an image) is in fact "flying"? Suppose that a searchlight
illuminates the base of clouds, the result being a moving white spot. Is
this a flying object? I don't think so. It is a moving patch of
illuminated cloud brighter than adjacent cloud. But it is neither an
object nor is it flying. I'll give you another example. I have seen many
subsuns from airplanes. They are elliptical bright spots. As the plane
moves the subsun moves with it. Is the subsun flying? Is it an object?
Neither. It is a slightly distorted image of the sun reflected by falling
ice crystals that are oriented. And yet the subsun is probably the most
common "unidentified flying object." My colleague Alistair Fraser told me
that he once saw a book about flying saucers in a shop window. On the
cover of was a photo of one of these saucers. Alistair said that it was a
beautiful photo of a subsun.

It is easy to see why subsuns are mistaken for flying saucers. They are
bright, elliptical, and no matter how fast the plane flies the "saucer"
keeps up. Wow! The mystery vanishes when you realize that what you are
seeing is fundamentally no different from what you would see if you were
walking along the edge of a fairly still lake with the sun low in the
sky. You would see the reflected image of the sun, and as you moved the
image would move. Run fast and the image will keep up with you. This is
exactly what happens in the atmosphere. The mirrors are just thousands of
tiny ice crystals.

Craig Bohren
 
Great responses from Dr Bohren! That's wonderful he was able to respond so quickly and at such length. I guess the mirage theory is out, though. Oh well.

Regarding the hole in the clouds, here's an interesting site with many pictures:
http://www.schools.ash.org.au/paa2/...id=&pid=596&uid=&gallcatid=&gallid=5&fileid=# They call fallstreak holes by another name, "hole punch clouds", and there's an interesting explanation there as to how they're formed on the same site.

Here are a few more:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040112.html
http://www.wkrg.com/servlet/Satelli...cle&cid=1031772579616&path=!weather!education
http://weatherthings.com/holepunch.html
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/grb/?n=holepunch

Interestingly, several of these sites say that these cloud formations are triggered by something flying through the cloud, though it takes some minutes for the hole to form.


I listened to the Jeff Rense show you pointed to. I also listened to a Nov 15th interview with Peter Davenport on Coast to Coast, which as far as I can tell, is the first report of the incident. He discussed the one witness statement he had which was:[here are my notes]

A ramp employee standing at nose of an aircraft at c17 while waiting for cockpit crew to get aircraft ready for departure, he was looked directly up.

He saw a disc shaped object, size of quarter at arms length, metallic, "obviously spinning". Looked like a frisby He apprised crew, they looked up through the windows at the top of the cabin - it is conjectured that they saw it, too.

He then called supervisor, (conjectured that)word went up the chain of command very fast and that the FAA was notified PD conjectured that tower operators were able to see object with binoculars

The sighting lasted 2 minutes. This person on ramp just stared at it whole time.
Skies were overcast at 1900 ft. It was just under the clouds.

Witness said it seemed to accelerate very very rapidly straight up. He asserted it "punched a hole in the clouds"

Others (PD didn't say how many others or where they were exactly) looking at it from the side, said that the object accelerated so fast, they lost view of it as soon as it started moving, some said it went left. Some said it went right.

So we've got a few conflicts here.

Witness A (coast to coast) says 2 minutes.
Witness B (jeff rense) says 20 minutes.

Witness A says just under 1900 ft cloud deck.
Witness B says 700-800 ft above ground level.

Witness A says "obviously spinning"
Witness B did not see spinning.

Both said hole in the clouds afterwards.
Both had similar size estimates.
Both said gray shadowy disc shape.


I don't know. Is there anything here to go on? Would it be reasonable to assume that since both witnesses talk about the "hole punched in the clouds", and since some of the cloud sites discussing "hole punch clouds" state that the hole is triggered by an aircraft/jet engine/object flying through the cloud, that they might have really seen an actual object, and not just a mirage or a shadow?
 
You think that it's unreasonable to want to examine the facts. This leaves any hypothesis you could posit in the dust of woo theory.

Show me the facts, then we'll talk.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-
I thinkm its unreasonable that your upset at me that are no facts to examine. Just an article fill of speculation. Seriously chill.
 
Anonymous cell phone camera image received by email:

http://www.earthfiles.com/news/news.cfm?ID=1200&category=Environment

Thoughts?

OhareUFO2full.jpg.jpg


The little gray, blurry thing in the top left corner is supposed to be an alien UFO?

Those aliens love to paint their UFOs in cloud color, it seems.

To me, the American Airlines aircraft in the foreground looks much more like a "flying object". ;)
 
Those aliens love to paint their UFOs in cloud color, it seems.
Wait a minute, that's nooo classic UFO, dude. I mean, where's the colored festival lights and the little green head sticking out on top?! :boxedin:
 

Back
Top Bottom