UFO over O'Hare

[firecoins]

Thats right. A UFO tried to land at O'Hare but the country's busiest airport had no place for them to land.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/columnists/chi-0701010141jan01,0,5874175.column?coll=chi-newsnationworldiraq-hed

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.
Where do I learn how to estimate the diameter of a disk at 1,900 feet?

~~ Paul

[Slimething]

"To fly 7 million light years to O'Hare and then have to turn around and go home because your gate was occupied is simply unacceptable," said O'Hare controller and union official Craig Burzych.

My favorite quote from the article. Many thanks to Mr. Burzych for summing up the controversy!

[hcmom]

Where do I learn how to estimate the diameter of a disk at 1,900 feet?

~~ Paul
If I were you, I'd start somewhere other than the group of people that estimated it with differences from a six foot diameter to a twenty-four foot diameter...

[The Atheist]

I love this one:

"I tend to be scientific by nature, and I don't understand why aliens would hover over a busy airport," said a United mechanic who was in the cockpit of a Boeing 777 that he was taxiing to a maintenance hangar when he observed the metallic-looking object above Gate C17.

"But I know that what I saw and what a lot of other people saw stood out very clearly, and it definitely was not an [Earth] aircraft," the mechanic said.

Oh yeah, reeeeeally scientific...

As are most mechanics.

[firecoins]

My favorite quote from the article. Many thanks to Mr. Burzych for summing up the controversy!
you don't mess with the Unions in Chicago. These aliens better watch out cause they will disappear for real!:eek:

[firecoins]

In the days of camera phones, digital camers and camcorders, its really amazing no one has even a grainy photo of it, especially at an airport! Your would figure that there are security cameras looking at the airfield as well as sky in the dirction of takeoffs and landings too!

[latent aaaack]

"One United employee appeared emotionally shaken by the sighting and "experienced some religious issues" over it, one co-worker said."

Because if there's a God, how could he just sit back and allow something as horrible as a grey disc sitting in the sky to happen? Doesn't make sense.

Shouldn't that bolster a religious viewpoint, that crazy stuff can just be poofed into existence without needing any explanation? I would've thought that seeing a UFO would comfort a believer.

[Huntster]

"One United employee appeared emotionally shaken by the sighting and "experienced some religious issues" over it, one co-worker said."

Because if there's a God, how could he just sit back and allow something as horrible as a grey disc sitting in the sky to happen? Doesn't make sense.

Shouldn't that bolster a religious viewpoint, that crazy stuff can just be poofed into existence without needing any explanation? I would've thought that seeing a UFO would comfort a believer.

Never been afraid of the unknown?

[The Atheist]

Never been afraid of the unknown?

Not when it's a UFO scared off the airport because it was too busy...

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

[Foolmewunz]

Uh oh! Move it to the Conspiracy Boards! The gubmint is trying to cover it up.

Federal agency backtracks

Like United, the FAA originally told the Tribune that it had no information on the alleged UFO sighting. But the federal agency quickly reversed its position after the newspaper filed a Freedom of Information Act request.

[American]

Shouldn't that bolster a religious viewpoint, that crazy stuff can just be poofed into existence without needing any explanation? I would've thought that seeing a UFO would comfort a believer.

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.

[latent aaaack]

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.

The point is they're accustomed to believing in phenomena much weirder than a spacecraft and to not needing to think about ramifications or explanations of anything. Unless it's like learning you have a new brother that your parents might like more, I don't get the "religious issues" that existence of aliens would provoke.

I can't think of a paranormal phenomenon with less potential ramifications than aliens that are impossible to prove or learn anything about.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Never been afraid of the unknown?
Not when it's a UFO scared off the airport because it was too busy...

Have you ever seen a UFO scared off the airport because it was too busy?

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

Of course I do. What's so difficult to "buy into" about unidentified flying objects?

I've seen several. I've even seen unidentified non-flying objects, and as my eyes fail more and more with age, I'll probably see a whole lot more of both in the future.

Were they spaceships filled with little green men?

I'm "highly skeptical" of that.

But I don't know. So I'm not going to make a fool of myself saying that I do.

[American]

Unless it's like learning you have a new brother that your parents might like more, I don't get the "religious issues" that existence of aliens would provoke.

That might be a good analogy.

I think a lot of religious people aren't true believers, they just practice it (and lie to themselves) in order to feel good. Seeing a "real" UFO would force them to realize there's no mysterious universe, instead only one based on hard science.

Of course a true believer would be just fine, secure in their faith that God is still in command.

[Patricio Elicer]

In the days of camera phones, digital camers and camcorders, its really amazing no one has even a grainy photo of it, especially at an airport! Your would figure that there are security cameras looking at the airfield as well as sky in the dirction of takeoffs and landings too!As I was scrolling down the thread I was thinking exactly the same thing. No pictures? hmmm, odd.

Another fantastic case where we just have testimonies to rely on, why the hell there's never the "hard evidence" for all of us to examine? :confused:

[thatguywhojuggles]

nothing here, move along...

[Patricio Elicer]

Here (http://forums.uforesearcher.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000177) 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.

[The Atheist]

Here (http://forums.uforesearcher.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000177) 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.

Here, I'll run that through the Gizmo........




http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/10377451f74d05e792.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1714)

[SezMe]

Hmpf. Pics shown more than 3 weeks after the incident, sent to a UFO nuttiness site by an anonymous person who refuses to state his employer. Hmmm, why am I suspicious?

ETA: If a picture is worth a thousand words, The Atheist is way ahead of me.

[The Atheist]

Were they spaceships filled with little green men?

I'm "highly skeptical" of that.

But I don't know. So I'm not going to make a fool of myself saying that I do.
Ok, I'll buy that.

I was a bit worried that you were off to Area 51, or whatever number it is.

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.

[Trig]

I know it's generally accepted now that UFO (aliens) believers are crazy. I know in the USA it's a pretty common thing to believe you've been abducted. Maybe people really want to be special, so much so they crave the attention they receive when making such a claim.

However they could be right, and one day all the skeptics will be eating their hats in preparation for when the flying saucer lands, and they come and eat our brains.

Who knows? Well you would think the government did, and they keep telling us that they don't. But you would also think they would have a legitimate explanation for such occurances, and would be able to convince the people what they really are.

If someone could explain the phenomena, and replicate it, then I would be totally convinced that it isn't aliens visiting. Whilst they cannot, I am open to believe it is: a funny cloud, someones funky frisbee, birds carrying a trash can lid, aliens in their space ship, military test craft, a prankster having fun at the gullible peoples expense.. and so on.

You can't discredit something whilst you have nothing to back it up, and vice versa.

I'm not a firm believer of the existence of extraterrestrials who our visiting our world, but I am open to the idea. It is feasible, however unlikely.

If you said to anyone 100 years ago that we would have space stations and regular trips to planets in our system, they would think your are crazy. One day, maybe, something will come visit us, and realise how technologically inferior we are.

[Patricio Elicer]

I know it's generally accepted now that UFO (aliens) believers are crazy. I know in the USA it's a pretty common thing to believe you've been abducted. Maybe people really want to be special, so much so they crave the attention they receive when making such a claim.

However they could be right, and one day all the skeptics will be eating their hats in preparation for when the flying saucer lands, and they come and eat our brains.

Who knows? Well you would think the government did, and they keep telling us that they don't. But you would also think they would have a legitimate explanation for such occurances, and would be able to convince the people what they really are.

If someone could explain the phenomena, and replicate it, then I would be totally convinced that it isn't aliens visiting. Whilst they cannot, I am open to believe it is: a funny cloud, someones funky frisbee, birds carrying a trash can lid, aliens in their space ship, military test craft, a prankster having fun at the gullible peoples expense.. and so on.

You can't discredit something whilst you have nothing to back it up, and vice versa.

I'm not a firm believer of the existence of extraterrestrials who our visiting our world, but I am open to the idea. It is feasible, however unlikely.

If you said to anyone 100 years ago that we would have space stations and regular trips to planets in our system, they would think your are crazy. One day, maybe, something will come visit us, and realise how technologically inferior we are.I agree with your views, but this particular case smells like a hoax to me, judging by the pics I linked above. There are quite a few reasons to think it's a hoax, some of them have been mentioned before, but the most compelling to me is that there are tens of pictures of the kind already proven to be hoaxes.

Anyway, I'd love to be proven wrong ....

[The Atheist]

I know it's generally accepted now that UFO (aliens) believers are crazy. I know in the USA it's a pretty common thing to believe you've been abducted. Maybe people really want to be special, so much so they crave the attention they receive when making such a claim.That, and I think the anal probes are a big selling point.
However they could be right, and one day all the skeptics will be eating their hats in preparation for when the flying saucer lands, and they come and eat our brains.Mmmm, fricasseed brains.
Who knows? Well you would think the government did, and they keep telling us that they don't. But you would also think they would have a legitimate explanation for such occurances, and would be able to convince the people what they really are.Look, I know your government has the odd problem - Iraq, North Korea, an imbecile as President, but inability to explain hoaxes, hysteria and downright lunacy shouldn't really count against them
If someone could explain the phenomena, and replicate it, then I would be totally convinced that it isn't aliens visiting. Whilst they cannot, I am open to believe it is: a funny cloud, someones funky frisbee, birds carrying a trash can lid, aliens in their space ship, military test craft, a prankster having fun at the gullible peoples expense.. and so on.Same applies - if you want to replicate the deal, try 3 or 4 days on a savia divornum and don't have any sleep. That should put your brain into the same mush-like state as UFO abductees.
You can't discredit something whilst you have nothing to back it up, and vice versa.You can't discredit delusions? Well, you can, it's just difficult because the people with the delusions don't usually realise they're deluded. It's like debunking god - it's very hard to disprove a non-existent entity. Try disproving the existence of the Tooth Fairy while you're at it.
I'm not a firm believer of the existence of extraterrestrials who our visiting our world, but I am open to the idea. It is feasible, however unlikely.Now you're onto it - of course it's possible. I'd personally love to meet a couple. Hitching a ride back with them is an attractive idea.
If you said to anyone 100 years ago that we would have space stations and regular trips to planets in our system, they would think your are crazy. One day, maybe, something will come visit us, and realise how technologically inferior we are.

Not sure that's correct, actually, early sci-fi dealt with this sort of thing right back to the 1600s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_fiction#Ancient_precursors) Imaginary voyages to the moon in the 17th century, first in Johannes Kepler's Somnium (The Dream, 1634), and then in Cyrano de Bergerac's Comical History of the States and Empires of the Moon (1656). Space travel also figures prominently in Voltaire's Micromégas (1752).

[Trig]

Yes, but this was science fiction right? and ufo's and aliens are science fiction now right? I stand by my original point.

I just think its unfair to dismiss everything at the glance of the content, and from what I have viewed throughtout these boards, I see alot of peoples 5 word posts, or posts that just state 'BULLSH*T'.

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
Were they spaceships filled with little green men?

I'm "highly skeptical" of that.

But I don't know. So I'm not going to make a fool of myself saying that I do.
Ok, I'll buy that.

I was a bit worried that you were off to Area 51, or whatever number it is.

I always wanted to go there, just to screw with security..........

.....you know; get painted up and crawl up to good optical range, just to see if they'd catch me.

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.

Maybe not.

We might not be "friendly natives."

[The Atheist]

I always wanted to go there, just to screw with security..........

.....you know; get painted up and crawl up to good optical range, just to see if they'd catch me.Nah, they'd just think you were Santa checking out for new propulsion to replace the reindeer.
Maybe not.

We might not be "friendly natives."True. They might realise that shoot first is a good option!

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
I always wanted to go there, just to screw with security..........

.....you know; get painted up and crawl up to good optical range, just to see if they'd catch me.

Nah, they'd just think you were Santa checking out for new propulsion to replace the reindeer.

Ho, ho, ho!

[bruto]

Anybody else here old enough to remember the old Sid Caesar show, and his character Progress Hornsby? No no, you can't land here. We're all full up!

[TjW]

The first picture looks nothing at all like the second picture.
The second picture looks very much like a lenticular cloud.
I have no idea what might create a low-level wave condition around O'Hare.

[SezMe]

I have no idea what might create a low-level wave condition around O'Hare.
Photoshop.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

At approximately 16:30 p.m. (Central) on Tuesday, November 07, 2006, Federal authorities at O'Hare Airport received a report that approximately a dozen witnesses were observing a small, round disc-shaped object, metallic in appearance, which hovered over Gate C17 at that airport.
It's 1,900 feet in the air, but it's "over Gate C17"?


At the end of that time, the object was seen to suddenly accelerate straight up at a very rapid pace, and it "shot" through the solid overcast, which was at 1,900 feet at the time. The witness added that the object appeared to leave a "hole" in the clouds, where it had streaked upwards through the overcast.
Aha, first it was low, then it shot up through the clouds, leaving a hole. Sounds like shadow effects of lenticular clouds.


we observed a dark gray hazy round object hovering over head C Terminal and holding very steady and near the cloud cover.
Now it's up at 1,900 feet but "over head C Terminal."

~~ Paul

[baron]

I don't understand where those two photos came from. The second one is 100% unquestionably fake. Not only that it was faked by someone totally unfamiliar with photography and digital manipulation.

The first one may or may not be fake, but it is certainly not a photo of what was described. There are two options ~

1) The object was very small in the original photo and was cropped and blown up for display. This sounds fine until you examine the extreme gradient of the background sky. This would manifest almost as a sharp cut-off in the original photo and is certainly not consistent with overcast conditions. There are even defined cloud-like structures bottom left.

2) The object was large in the photograph. However, witnesses said clearly that this was not so.

Therefore, as relates to this event, they are bogus.

If these photos are genuinely related to the reports then I'm afraid the whole thing is a fake. If not, the report is quite interesting (despite the somewhat childish derision it received from some quarters)

[Trig]

I think the second looks more like a cloud :)

[American]

I can't think of a paranormal phenomenon with less potential ramifications than aliens that are impossible to prove or learn anything about.

I thought of this a bit, and I now change some of my argument--

The fact is: seeing a real UFO could be absolutely terrifying to a lot of people, both religious and atheist alike.

Some might take it lightly. Others would be un-nerved, but they'd still handle it maturely... Still, many folks would just freak out and "lose it".

So clinging to one's religion, whether or not they believed strongly, might be the right reaction for someone scared s--tless.

[Skeptic Guy]

I thought of this a bit, and I now change some of my argument--

The fact is: seeing a real UFO could be absolutely terrifying to a lot of people, both religious and atheist alike.

Some might take it lightly. Others would be un-nerved, but they'd still handle it maturely... Still, many folks would just freak out and "lose it".

So clinging to one's religion, whether or not they believed strongly, might be the right reaction for someone scared s--tless.

I wonder how many people would get really frightened about something like an alien visitation. That has always been the excuse the UFO CT'ers have used to explain why the government would hide the fact that UFOs have visited the Earth. To me, I don't think the majority of the world's population would be that freaked out about it. At least in an overly frightened manner.

I think the majority of people who would think it a fantastic, life-changing experience. And I would suspect that some fundamentalist religions would go into convulsions and among the rest of the more woo-centric believers there would spring up a plethora of new religions based on whatever showed up on our doorstep.

Of course, in our limited, earthly experience, there has never been a peaceful meeting between a highly technologically advanced culture and a lesser one. Therefore, if a flying saucer did show up one day, the love would probably be short-lived until the lasers start flying. That's another reason I don't think that we have been visited by aliens to date, I am not currently reporting to my new alien overlord.

[meg]

Is it just me, or does the second picture here:
http://forums.uforesearcher.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000177

look strikingly similar to the picture found here?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Hare_International_Airport

What are the odds of that ;)

[Overman]

Thats right. A UFO tried to land at O'Hare but the country's busiest airport had no place for them to land.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/columnists/chi-0701010141jan01,0,5874175.column?coll=chi-newsnationworldiraq-hed

YOU MEAN THEY ACTUALLY GOT MY NYE PARTY INVITE, ONLY TO LEAVE BECAUSE THE GATE WAS FULL!!!

DAMN YOU AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS!!!!

;)

[Kiwiwriter]

It was obviously here before to pick up the goods from Al Capone's vault, and replace it with the mud and dirt that Geraldo Rivera found.

Now, it's back for a follow-up.

:)

[MichelQC]

At approximately 16:30 p.m. (Central) on Tuesday, November 07, 2006, Federal authorities at O'Hare Airport received a report that approximately a dozen witnesses were observing a small, round disc-shaped object, metallic in appearance, which hovered over Gate C17 at that airport.

Only a dozen people saw this?? At O'Hare airport one of the busiest airport in the US? In broad daylight? During peak traffic hours? There must have been hundreds if not thousands of people within visual range of this "phenomena" and yet only a handful of people reported seeing this? Now there's solid evidence for you! :rolleyes:

[shemp]

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.

You seem to know a lot about "poofiness". Have you been ripping off Elton John again?

[Huntster]

Only a dozen people saw this??

Yup. Only a dozen.

Enough to convict someone of a capital crime..............

Now there's solid evidence for you! :rolleyes:

Define "solid", please.

[meg]

Sorry. I'm still stuck the "photos".

That same second picture can be found on this page:
http://www.nationalufocenter.com/artman/publish/article_121.php

The "photo" caption reads "Illustration of disc above control towers"

However on that first page of pics, the caption posted by forum member Steven was "Second independant photo of same object taken of disc above control towers same event - O'Hare."

Just thought I'd share.

[Diogenes]

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3466/untitled6xu5.jpg

Definitely manipulated image..

Ditto ..

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/9241/oharedisksm8.jpg


Here is a zoomed in crop ..



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_573459aa43ed0c87.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3444)


Of course God, or aliens could make objects, that when photographed, appear to be amateur Photo Shop'ed jobs...

[Crazycowbob]

Here (http://forums.uforesearcher.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000177) 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.

I was reading Phil Plait's badastronomy blog earlier, and one of the posts linked to this site http://pic1.funtigo.com/valuca/?g=25544746&cr=1, a collection of some truly remarkable cloud photos (thanks Phil!)

Is it just me, or does that second picture in the UFO site look remarkably like a lenticular cloud? I'm sure there would be at least a dozen people in a crowd of hundreds that would be convinced it was a ufo...

[The Atheist]

Only a dozen people saw this?? At O'Hare airport one of the busiest airport in the US? In broad daylight? During peak traffic hours? There must have been hundreds if not thousands of people within visual range of this "phenomena" and yet only a handful of people reported seeing this? Now there's solid evidence for you! :rolleyes:

They were the only group smoking salvia?

[The Atheist]

You seem to know a lot about "poofiness". Have you been ripping off Elton John again?:dl:

[meg]

Hi Crazycowbob,

Yeah. I think it looks like a lenticular cloud, too. (Way cool pictures on that funtigo.com site, btw).

However, I'm quite sure that blob of what ever it is was photoshopped into this photo from wikipedia:

4855

[The Atheist]

If not, the report is quite interesting (despite the somewhat childish derision it received from some quarters)
The derision will stop on the very day that a "report" of a UFO sighting has any more credibility than sightings of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

This is clearly just a load of crap thought up by some bored (or stoned) employees.

Just think about it for a millisecond, all the thousands of people at the airport who didn't see it, yet one of the guys who "saw" the "UFO" was at the time parking a plane. Don't you think he might have been looking where he was going while in charge of several million dollars worth of equipment?

Anyone giving credence to this rubbish ought to be posting on a UFO forum, not here.

[Crazycowbob]

http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/3466/untitled6xu5.jpg

Definitely manipulated image..

Ditto ..




Here is a zoomed in crop ..






Of course God, or aliens could make objects, that when photographed, appear to be amateur Photo Shop'ed jobs...

I personally see no reason to believe that first image was photoshopped, and, if it was taken on the date in question, it easily explains what was seen. Check the link in my previous post, and you'll see that clouds can make some amazing shapes, including discs.

The image seems to be in good resolution (a rarity in these cases!), and the fuzziness of the object would be consistent with a cloud. No need to think it was edited, just missinterpreted.

[The Atheist]

Hi Crazycowbob,

Yeah. I think it looks like a lenticular cloud, too. (Way cool pictures on that funtigo.com site, btw).

However, I'm quite sure that blob of what ever it is was photoshopped into this photo from wikipedia:

4855

THAT is nominated - superb effort!

[Crazycowbob]

Hi Crazycowbob,

Yeah. I think it looks like a lenticular cloud, too. (Way cool pictures on that funtigo.com site, btw).

However, I'm quite sure that blob of what ever it is was photoshopped into this photo from wikipedia:

4855

Ah, hadn't seen that image, yeah, you're probably right then. You'd figure they'd find a better picture of a UFO if they were going to go through all the trouble of photoshopping it lol!

[firecoins]

Today's CNN article.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/02/ufo.sighting.ap/index.html

[Skeptic Guy]

I personally see no reason to believe that first image was photoshopped, and, if it was taken on the date in question, it easily explains what was seen. Check the link in my previous post, and you'll see that clouds can make some amazing shapes, including discs.

The image seems to be in good resolution (a rarity in these cases!), and the fuzziness of the object would be consistent with a cloud. No need to think it was edited, just missinterpreted.

Well, if you read Meg's post, I think it strongly suggests that someone invested in an Adobe product.

EDIT: Nevermind, I hadn't gotten down to the end of the posts. Sorry.

[Diogenes]

I personally see no reason to believe that first image was photoshopped, and, if it was taken on the date in question, it easily explains what was seen. Check the link in my previous post, and you'll see that clouds can make some amazing shapes, including discs.

The image seems to be in good resolution (a rarity in these cases!), and the fuzziness of the object would be consistent with a cloud. No need to think it was edited, just missinterpreted.
Actually, if you zoom in on the first image you can see that the texture of the UFO doesn’t match the rest of the image..

It is what you see when you paste a high resolution sprite onto a low resolution background..


Click on this..


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_573459ab1dad90f1.gif (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=3450)


It may very well be a lenticular cloud. 'Just didn't occur in the context as shown ..

[meg]

Why thank you, Atheist :)

For what it's worth, as a former air traffic controller, I doubt very much that the airline workers were trying to deliberately hoax anyone. Nor do I suspect they were stoned. If I were to guess, I'd say they saw some weird cloud, shadow, or smoke formation that near dusk, from their exact angle, with a low cloud deck just appeared to be some kind of solid disc shaped thing. One possibility might be some kind of hanging remnant from the wingtip vortices from a heavy jet. Here's a very cool picture of that sort of thing http://www.airliners.net/open.file/1091105/M/ , if you're interested. Another possibility might be a ring cloud. Over the years I've seen many bizarre cloud formations, many strange weather phenomena, and many times I've looked at aircraft from a certain angle, or through a heat haze, or with sunlight reflecting on them in a strange way, and thought I saw something different than what I was really looking at.

So I don't blame the airline workers for reporting what they saw. I think they probably believed they really saw something and were genuinely concerned about it.

The UFOers, on the other hand, that decided to "bump up" the story with faked photos... well, I can only assume that they're not really interested in finding the truth if they'll do something like that.

[Crazycowbob]

The UFOers, on the other hand, that decided to "bump up" the story with faked photos... well, I can only assume that they're not really interested in finding the truth if they'll do something like that.

Too true, though it still just blows my mind that they'd photoshop in a cloud of all things...

Ah well, no one said these were the best and brightest.

That vortex picture was awesome BTW! I love seeing all the cool things that happen in they sky, and I've seen a lot of cool things, no need for little green men to spice it up. :)

[baron]

The derision will stop on the very day that a "report" of a UFO sighting has any more credibility than sightings of angels dancing on the head of a pin.

This is clearly just a load of crap thought up by some bored (or stoned) employees.

Just think about it for a millisecond, all the thousands of people at the airport who didn't see it, yet one of the guys who "saw" the "UFO" was at the time parking a plane. Don't you think he might have been looking where he was going while in charge of several million dollars worth of equipment?

Anyone giving credence to this rubbish ought to be posting on a UFO forum, not here.

Top quality argument. Well done.

[baron]

And just to be clear about the photo. Of course it's a fake. However, it's not a cloud that's been pasted in, it's simply a single pen stroke painted onto the copied photo. I can even tell you the pen settings they used.

[The Atheist]

Why thank you, Atheist :) You are most welcome!
For what it's worth, as a former air traffic controller, I doubt very much that the airline workers were trying to deliberately hoax anyone. Nor do I suspect they were stoned. If I were to guess, I'd say they saw some weird cloud, shadow, or smoke formation that near dusk, from their exact angle, with a low cloud deck just appeared to be some kind of solid disc shaped thing.Again, I'm sure you're right - I just get thoroughly annoyed with people who see something odd and immediately jump to the least likely conclusions, especially when they give lie to themselves with claims like, "I'm a really scientific person." then don't even consider the likely optical or meteorological illusions, but go straight to, "Oh my god! A UFO!"

[baron]

And I get annoyed with people who don't bother to research the facts and simply shout "liar!" or "stoned!" when someone reports what they saw. If someone saw something that looked like a structured craft then why on earth should they not say so? Is it a crime to be mistaken, or to honestly report an experience? Should they keep their interpretations secret for fear of offending those who are positively up themselves with righteous indignation at the thought of phenomenon they can't immediately explain.

[Skeptic Guy]

You are most welcome!
Again, I'm sure you're right - I just get thoroughly annoyed with people who see something odd and immediately jump to the least likely conclusions, especially when they give lie to themselves with claims like, "I'm a really scientific person." then don't even consider the likely optical or meteorological illusions, but go straight to, "Oh my god! A UFO!"

Or, "I'm normally a skeptical person, but this was totally unexplainable...".

[Luke T.]

From both the OP link and the CNN story:

"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."

Works for me.

[Crazycowbob]

And I get annoyed with people who don't bother to research the facts and simply shout "liar!" or "stoned!" when someone reports what they saw. If someone saw something that looked like a structured craft then why on earth should they not say so? Is it a crime to be mistaken, or to honestly report an experience? Should they keep their interpretations secret for fear of offending those who are positively up themselves with righteous indignation at the thought of phenomenon they can't immediately explain.

True, I agree that shouldn't be a skeptics first thought. A thought out examination of evidence and list of possible explainations would be a better thing to bring to them. Of course, there are a lot of believers who will see something, and say they saw a spacecraft, instead of they think what they saw was a space craft, and typically those are the people who won't accept any other explaination than their own.

Should we call them "lairs" or "stoned"? No, everyone is entitled to make mistakes, but I do think they should be willing to acknowledge that mistake instead of clinging to it for fear of being wrong.

[baron]

...everyone is entitled to make mistakes, but I do think they should be willing to acknowledge that mistake instead of clinging to it for fear of being wrong.

That's true. However, as supposedly critical thinkers we shouldn't concern ourselves too much with that aspect. If, when a satisfactory solution has been presented, the witness decides not to accept it, then that's their business.

Also, bear in mind that in this instance not only have there been no reports of people acting in this fashion, there have been no reasonable explanations put forwards as to what the witnesses saw. The "weather phenomenon" is so vague and ridiculous it doesn't even warrant discussion. Swamp gas, anyone?

[meg]

And just to be clear about the photo. Of course it's a fake. However, it's not a cloud that's been pasted in, it's simply a single pen stroke painted onto the copied photo. I can even tell you the pen settings they used.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, baron, by "a single pen stroke painted onto the copied photo", or "pen settings". If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate. What do you think they did, and how did they do it?

I'm always interested in learning something new :)

Plus, I'm half heartedly contemplating going over to that forum and confronting them on the fake pics. Any ammo you could provide would be most useful, I'm sure.

Meg

[baron]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean, baron, by "a single pen stroke painted onto the copied photo", or "pen settings". If you don't mind, I'd appreciate it if you'd elaborate. What do you think they did, and how did they do it?

To start from basics (apologies if you know some of this already) there are a number of software packages on the market designed for digital manipulation and painting. One of the most popular is Photoshop although there are several others (e.g. Painter, which I use for all my own work)

When you paint using one of these products you can create your own virtual "brushes" or use the ones provided. Brushes are essentially collections of pixels that you drag round the screen and "paint" with, and they have various attributes that emulate traditional painting, e.g. transparency, opacity, resaturation. In Photoshop and Painter there are literally dozens of attribues that can be tweaked to emulate almost any painting style and medium.

To take full advantage of these features you need to paint with a pressure sensitive pen and tablet (not a mouse) although in this case I doubt that was necessary :D

Basically what I'm saying is that this is a simple squiggle, done in Photoshop or similar, likely with one of the default brushes. It would have taken in the region of three seconds to produce.

(BTW - I noticed I said "pen settings" when I meant "brush settings" - slip of the brain)

[Astrophotographer]

Hi Crazycowbob,

Yeah. I think it looks like a lenticular cloud, too. (Way cool pictures on that funtigo.com site, btw).

However, I'm quite sure that blob of what ever it is was photoshopped into this photo from wikipedia:

4855

I think the photo at wikipedia pretty much puts this image into the "fake" category. What would be the odds that the photographer of the UFO would get the same perspective of the towers and the tail of the same airplane visible in his photograph?

[Patricio Elicer]

Is it just me, or does the second picture here:
http://forums.uforesearcher.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000177

look strikingly similar to the picture found here?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Hare_International_Airport

What are the odds of that ;)Good catch!. That seals the case definitely as a fake (surprise?).

Here are both pics side by side for better comparison (I resized and cropped the Wiki photo a bit). Superimposing the pictures they fit exactly on one another.

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/4224/hareufo2yp7.jpg

[Patricio Elicer]

What would be the odds that the photographer of the UFO would get the same perspective of the towers and the tail of the same airplane visible in his photograph?Zero. And it's not only the perspective, all details are exactly the same.

[baron]

Good catch!. That seals the case definitely as a fake (surprise?).

It does? AFAIK the photos are not related to the witnesses. Someone sent them to a forum anonymously at a later date, did they not? If so they have no bearing on the case. (I may be wrong - there may be a connection - I'm a bit rushed ATM so apologies if I missed anything)

[RSLancastr]

Is it just me, or does the second picture here:
http://forums.uforesearcher.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000177

look strikingly similar to the picture found here?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Hare_International_Airport

What are the odds of that ;)You have dicovered that Wikipedia is part of the conspiracy! Why else would they have blanked out the image of the UFO from their copy of the picture?!?!

(Good catch, Meg!)

[Patricio Elicer]

It does? AFAIK the photos are not related to the witnesses. Someone sent them to a forum anonymously at a later date, did they not? If so they have no bearing on the case. Could be. They don't mention on that forum where the pictures come from, but they say: We have received documentation about the alleged sighting, which satisfies us as to the veracity of the report, and as to the credentials of the party reporting the incident. So it is to expect, since they don't state otherwise, that the pictures are part of such documentation.

EDIT
Also note that the caption to the second photo reads: "Second independant photo of same object taken of disc above control towers same event - O'Hare.". It clearly sates that it was taken on the event, and not not a mere illustration of the sighting.

[Notrump]

O’Hare UFO Cover-Up Revealed

By Barney Hill
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 2, 2007

Previously classified files regarding the November 7th UFO incident at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport have been obtained by the Tribune. Despite official denials, FAA logs indicate that air traffic controllers and Department of Homeland Security officials did indeed communicate with extraterrestrial beings that had requested clearance to land their ship.

Clearance was denied due to security concerns, according to the documents. Nevertheless, the alien craft hovered briefly above concourse C of the United Airlines terminal while awaiting instructions for a departure route through the crowded airspace. During those minutes DHS agents learned that the aliens had intended to negotiate with a UAL passenger for ownership of a weeping Madonna painting that he was planning to transport to his home.

Upon questioning, Hector Valenzuela, 43, of Roswell, New Mexico revealed he had come to Chicago knowing it contained the largest number of weeping Madonnas in the world. He claimed to have purchased one in Millennium Park in exchange for $100 and an undisclosed substance. However, after the extraterrestrials contacted him on his cell phone while he was in the airport security waiting line, Valenzuela said he quickly agreed to an offer of a sip of water from the Fountain of Youth and a guided tour of the alien ship in exchange for the artwork. Federal officials noted a greenish tint to Valenzuela’s complexion, suggesting a close relationship with the extraterrestrials. However, the agents accepted his explanation of having recently consumed a hefty portion of green Loch Ness monster meat.

President George W. Bush, after being advised of the incident, chastised his agents for not allowing the flying saucer to land. Bush lamented, “These were obviously creatures of faith who should have been treated with greater respect.”

Meanwhile, the Tribune has learned that witnesses to the UFO’s movements near O’Hare have hired Johnny Cochran to handle their defamation of character lawsuit against the US government, claiming that early dismissals of their sighting as that of a weather phenomenon were making them laughing stocks among their friends and families. Witness and UAL baggage handler, Chester Wooster, 38, who is a member of the Mutual UFO Network, told the Tribune that Cochran has proven that he can get people to believe the most preposterous things, making him “our kind of guy.”

Actor Dan Aykroyd, a life member of MUFON, took the opportunity to again denounce what he believes is the government’s blanket cover-up of extraterrestrial visitations. The highly regarded celebrity plaintively asked, “How can they continue to deny what we all know in our hearts must be true?”

[SezMe]

Cochran is coming back from the grave to take on this case! Now THAT is news. :)

[SezMe]

I think there are two separate events going on here. First, some people did see some unusual phenomenon over O'Hare and reported it. Fine.

Secondly, and quite separately, some UFO nutbar (or maybe a playful hoaxer) created some fake photos, sent them to MUFON and made the case that this was documentation of the O'Hare incident. MUFON bought it hook, line, and sinker.

Note on the link Patricio provided that there is a post from one of the witnesses AFTER the photos were posted. But he never referred to those photos. If the photos were, in fact, documentation, I would have expected him to say, "Yeah, that's what I saw."

ETA: Nope, I have that timing wrong. The quote from the eyewitness is before the pictures were posted. But I stand by my theory.

[rwguinn]

O’Hare UFO Cover-Up Revealed

By Barney Hill
Tribune staff reporter
Published January 2, 2007

Previously classified files regarding the November 7th UFO incident at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport have been obtained by the Tribune. Despite official denials, FAA logs indicate that air traffic controllers and Department of Homeland Security officials did indeed communicate with extraterrestrial beings that had requested clearance to land their ship.

Clearance was denied due to security concerns, according to the documents. Nevertheless, the alien craft hovered briefly above concourse C of the United Airlines terminal while awaiting instructions for a departure route through the crowded airspace. During those minutes DHS agents learned that the aliens had intended to negotiate with a UAL passenger for ownership of a weeping Madonna painting that he was planning to transport to his home.

Upon questioning, Hector Valenzuela, 43, of Roswell, New Mexico revealed he had come to Chicago knowing it contained the largest number of weeping Madonnas in the world. He claimed to have purchased one in Millennium Park in exchange for $100 and an undisclosed substance. However, after the extraterrestrials contacted him on his cell phone while he was in the airport security waiting line, Valenzuela said he quickly agreed to an offer of a sip of water from the Fountain of Youth and a guided tour of the alien ship in exchange for the artwork. Federal officials noted a greenish tint to Valenzuela’s complexion, suggesting a close relationship with the extraterrestrials. However, the agents accepted his explanation of having recently consumed a hefty portion of green Loch Ness monster meat.

President George W. Bush, after being advised of the incident, chastised his agents for not allowing the flying saucer to land. Bush lamented, “These were obviously creatures of faith who should have been treated with greater respect.”

Meanwhile, the Tribune has learned that witnesses to the UFO’s movements near O’Hare have hired Johnny Cochran to handle their defamation of character lawsuit against the US government, claiming that early dismissals of their sighting as that of a weather phenomenon were making them laughing stocks among their friends and families. Witness and UAL baggage handler, Chester Wooster, 38, who is a member of the Mutual UFO Network, told the Tribune that Cochran has proven that he can get people to believe the most preposterous things, making him “our kind of guy.”

Actor Dan Aykroyd, a life member of MUFON, took the opportunity to again denounce what he believes is the government’s blanket cover-up of extraterrestrial visitations. The highly regarded celebrity plaintively asked, “How can they continue to deny what we all know in our hearts must be true?”

That is made up!
I know Hector, and he lives in Artesia, not Roswell--so somebody is lying!
[/duh! mode off}:D

[baron]

Also note that the caption to the second photo reads: "Second independant photo of same object taken of disc above control towers same event - O'Hare.". It clearly sates that it was taken on the event, and not not a mere illustration of the sighting.

Reading that forum again it's probably best to discount anything that appears on it. I mean "Second independant photo of same object taken of disc above control towers same event" isn't even English. The account as a whole is contradictory and utterly unclear. To compound it, the person who wrote it is clearly stark staring mad, as evidenced by his last post.

[meg]

Yeah. I wouldn't say this proves the *case* is a hoax, only that image.

The same image is displayed here, http://www.nationalufocenter.com/artman/publish/article_121.php , the only difference being that here it is captioned "Illustration of disc above control towers." Indeed, the name of the imagefile is 51ohareillustration.jpg

That report is credited to Peter Davenport, Director of www.ufocenter.com however, it does not say who made the "illustration". As there is no "illustration" added to the ufocenter report, I tend to think it was added/created by the holders of the above site.

I suspect that Steven on the forum board we were first looking at just copped the pic and put it up and called it a "photo".

[Patricio Elicer]

I wouldn't say this proves the *case* is a hoax, only that image.I agree. I guess I jumped to a conclusion too fast.

I suspect that Steven on the forum board we were first looking at just copped the pic and put it up and called it a "photo". Just note that Steven seemingly speaks on behalf of "uforesearcher.com" and is a forum Admin.

[Fnord]

"One United employee appeared emotionally shaken by the sighting and "experienced some religious issues" over it, one co-worker said."

Because if there's a God, how could he just sit back and allow something as horrible as a grey disc sitting in the sky to happen? Doesn't make sense.

Shouldn't that bolster a religious viewpoint, that crazy stuff can just be poofed into existence without needing any explanation? I would've thought that seeing a UFO would comfort a believer.


This believer has seen UFO's (Literally: Objects flying in the air that he could not identify), and didn't lose any sleep over them. Those mechanics alledgedly saw something in the air that they were unable to identify. Whatever led them to leap from "Hovering disc-like object" to "Extra-terrestrial space craft" is beyond me.

Next they'll be seeing WMD's in every piece of luggage, the Loch Ness Monster off Navy Pier, and the Virgin Mary in a grease spot on the Dan Ryan expressway!

Commentary:

1) You'd think that after 911 people would be better skilled with Photoshop.
2) False data (Photoshopped images) detract from the validity of the original assertion.
3) They did not see anything because there was nothing to see.

-Fnord of Dyscordia-

[RichardR]

Hi Crazycowbob,

Yeah. I think it looks like a lenticular cloud, too. (Way cool pictures on that funtigo.com site, btw).

However, I'm quite sure that blob of what ever it is was photoshopped into this photo from wikipedia:

4855Well caught - it's identical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Towers2566.JPG).

[The Atheist]

And I get annoyed with people who don't bother to research the facts and simply shout "liar!" or "stoned!" when someone reports what they saw. If someone saw something that looked like a structured craft then why on earth should they not say so? Is it a crime to be mistaken, or to honestly report an experience? Should they keep their interpretations secret for fear of offending those who are positively up themselves with righteous indignation at the thought of phenomenon they can't immediately explain.Nah, sorry, but that's just blatant rubbish.

As I said earlier, the problem is immediately jumping from, "What the hell's that!?!?" to, "Oh my god, it's a REAL UFO!"

I have no problem with people seeing strange objects in the sky - I've seen two myself which immediately appeared inexplicable, but study quickly resolved the issue in each case.

They needed to take a leaf out of Sherlock Holmes and eliminate the possible answers before jumping to the impossible ones.

As long as people are happy to jump to conclusions, I'm very happy to jump on them with equal amounts of scorn and ridicule.

Can you imagine what the first man to see an aurora thought? He probably thought the world was ending and his god arriving. When he still woke up the next morning and saw the same thing the next night, he probably started looking for other explanations.

[The Atheist]

I think there are two separate events going on here. First, some people did see some unusual phenomenon over O'Hare and reported it. Fine.

Secondly, and quite separately, some UFO nutbar (or maybe a playful hoaxer) created some fake photos, sent them to MUFON and made the case that this was documentation of the O'Hare incident. MUFON bought it hook, line, and sinker.

I agree. I bet this happens every time someone experiences an unusual phenomenom. One of the group of no-brains at MUFON think, "Wow, let's climb on board the bandwagon and post that old UFO pic again (again) [again].

Any crop circles or dissected cows found in the area?

[WildCat]

The first picture looks nothing at all like the second picture.
The second picture looks very much like a lenticular cloud.
I have no idea what might create a low-level wave condition around O'Hare.
I'd bet that the first pic is fake, the second shows what looks like a cloud or some other weather phenomena. In the fading light maybe could be mistaken for a UFO.

[WildCat]

OTOH, it was election day and Cook County pols have been known to do whatever it takes to bring the votes in. Bringing in space aliens to vote for Todd Stroger I bet, how else did that incompetent idiot actually get elected after taking his stroke-addled fathers place in the Cook County Board President election?

This will be pretty easy to discover if true, I'll look out for space aliens working in high-paying do-nothing county jobs.

[MichelQC]

Yup. Only a dozen.

Enough to convict someone of a capital crime..............



Define "solid", please.

To me solid evidence, given the fact that there must have been several thousand possible witnesses in and around O'Hare airport at that time would have been more than a few testimonies. For example if several dozens (instead of just one) individual would have seen the object and given concording descriptions of it while being at different locations around O'Hare that would have given a lot more weight to the sighting. There was surely more than one plane on the tarmac at the time, why did no other passengers or crew reported seeing anything?

The fact that only a limited number of people claim to have seen something certainly suggest that what they saw is most probably an optical illusion of some sort who could be viewed only from the exact location where they happened to be at the moment. That would explained why the thing "suddently vanished". I am reasonably sure that they indeed saw something and that the report is an honest one. But the lack of supporting evidence certainly do not permit us to conclude that this was an extra-terrestrial craft.

[WildCat]

The fact that only a limited number of people claim to have seen something certainly suggest that what they saw is most probably an optical illusion of some sort who could be viewed only from the exact location where they happened to be at the moment. That would explained why the thing "suddently vanished". I am reasonably sure that they indeed saw something and that the report is an honest one. But the lack of supporting evidence certainly do not permit us to conclude that this was an extra-terrestrial craft.
I seem to remember some scattered light rain that day, anyone know where to look up past weather? Perhaps headlights from a plane, tanker truck, or some other vehicle on the tarmac reflecting off slick pavement onto a low-hanging cloud? It would appear to move very fast when the vehicle moved.

Just a WAG.

[switchtech]

Uh oh! Move it to the Conspiracy Boards! The gubmint is trying to cover it up.

Problem is the FAA is trying to cover up that they have no evidence there was anything there other than a call to the tower to see if there was anything there... the controllers said they had nothing on their scopes. So the FAA is covering up that there was nothing there.:boggled:

Surprising how fast a FOIA request was filed!

jbs

[switchtech]

Here (http://forums.uforesearcher.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000177) 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.

These people really need to come forward if they have real evidence. The top image has no context and is from an anonymous source. The second one looks pretty much as the taxi mechanic describes, a hazy gray object, but has been convincingly debunked in this thread.

I would love to discover we aren't alone in the universe, scared that they have the technology to cross the vast distances of the universe (or even our galaxy), but relieved again since they must have been visiting here for a very long time without destroying us (of course we might be a particularly interesting strain of fruit fly to them...);)

BUT - I seriously doubt the ET are here and the type of evidence UFO fans accept as proof seriously degrades their position and believability.

jbs

[meg]

Well, I'll be d**ned. They accepted my registration over at uforesearcher.com. I guess we'll see how long this will last ;)

[Joe_Black]

Who cares, it was to far to be sure in fading light, perhaps it was perhaps it was not, is it even worth a thread?

[switchtech]

Well, I'll be d**ned. They accepted my registration over at uforesearcher.com. I guess we'll see how long this will last ;)

Well, if they're like most "true believer" sites, it won't be long, considering you're calling into question, albeit somewhat subtly, the veracity of their evidence.

Wonder what's they'd do if someone pointed out the O'Hare Wiki and the identical photo (from July apparently) sans saucer they have there?:D

jbs

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster

Yup. Only a dozen.

Enough to convict someone of a capital crime..............

Define "solid", please.

To me solid evidence, given the fact that there must have been several thousand possible witnesses in and around O'Hare airport at that time would have been more than a few testimonies. For example if several dozens (instead of just one) individual would have seen the object and given concording descriptions of it while being at different locations around O'Hare that would have given a lot more weight to the sighting.

Okay.

Several dozen rather than one.

84 instead of 12.

What do you think of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun)?

There was surely more than one plane on the tarmac at the time, why did no other passengers or crew reported seeing anything?

Who says they didn't?

The FAA?

The fact that only a limited number of people claim to have seen something certainly suggest that what they saw is most probably an optical illusion of some sort who could be viewed only from the exact location where they happened to be at the moment. That would explained why the thing "suddently vanished". I am reasonably sure that they indeed saw something and that the report is an honest one. But the lack of supporting evidence certainly do not permit us to conclude that this was an extra-terrestrial craft.

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".

[SezMe]

Well, I'll be d**ned. They accepted my registration over at uforesearcher.com. I guess we'll see how long this will last ;)
Your first post was quite polite...more than I could have done. Good luck.

[Patricio Elicer]

Well, I'll be d**ned. They accepted my registration over at uforesearcher.com. I guess we'll see how long this will last ;)
Good one. Let's see what happens....

[The Atheist]

Your first post was quite polite...more than I could have done. Good luck.
Class tells, eh? I'd have been out of there after one post.

[meg]

Well, I'm really darn skeptical, Huntster.

What are you saying with that link? Are you implying that these United mechanics were maybe chosen witnesses to Our Lady of O'hare?

At 4:30pm on a tuesday afternoon they would have been entering the "dinner rush", meaning they would have been pulling United aircraft into the airport as fast as possible. A typical rate would have been a little over 1/min (1.3) per runway. With two runways in operation, (typical) it would have been about 2.6/minute. About one every 24 seconds. While all the reports state that "up to a dozen people" saw the thing "for several minutes", when they get down to the quotes, the most they can come up with quotewise is one guy says that he saw the thing for about two minutes. So, at the BARE MINIMUM, in two minutes, at least 5 aircraft were coming in. At an average of 120 passengers and 3 crew in the cockpit per jet that comes to about 615 people entering that concourse area in that 2 minutes. If it was indeed in the air for "several" minutes, let's say 10, that would mean about 3075 people entered that particular space in that time.

Add at least 15 people in the tower, so in a 2 minute window there would be around 630 possible witnesses. In a 10 minute window, there would be around 3090 potential witnesses to the miraculous event. This would be a minimum, not counting planes departing or people in the concourse awaiting their loved ones.

So, if the maximum reported (about a dozen) saw the event, that would mean at the small side 1.9%, and at the big end .4% (.0039 rounded up)

So let's compare that to the "Miracle of the Sun", shall we? According to your wikiwedia link, the estimated crowd size ranged from 30,000 to 100,000, depending on reports, however according to John De Marchi, who stayed at Fatima for years and interviewed people, he had "hundreds" of witness testimonies.

Let's really give him the benefit of the doubt and say that "hundreds" means 700. If 700 out of 30,000 attested to the event, that's 2%. If 700 out of 100,000 attested to the event, that means .7%

So, if we compare the two, we find that it is MORE likely that in 1917 the sun spun on its axis, danced and, "whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight." than it is that on Nov 7, 2006, twelve United employees saw a disc shaped thing in the sky that kind of suddenly disappeared.

[Huntster]

Well, I'm really darn skeptical, Huntster.

What are you saying with that link? Are you implying that these United mechanics were maybe chosen witnesses to Our Lady of O'hare?

That depends on how you look at it.

It's rather humbling to be among a few to witness something spectacular while thousands sat on their asses nearby in complete ignorance.

It can also be damned frustrating.

At 4:30pm on a tuesday afternoon they would have been entering the "dinner rush", meaning they would have been pulling United aircraft into the airport as fast as possible. A typical rate would have been a little over 1/min (1.3) per runway. With two runways in operation, (typical) it would have been about 2.6/minute. About one every 24 seconds. While all the reports state that "up to a dozen people" saw the thing "for several minutes", when they get down to the quotes, the most they can come up with quotewise is one guy says that he saw the thing for about two minutes. So, at the BARE MINIMUM, in two minutes, at least 5 aircraft were coming in. At an average of 120 passengers and 3 crew in the cockpit per jet that comes to about 615 people entering that concourse area in that 2 minutes. If it was indeed in the air for "several" minutes, let's say 10, that would mean about 3075 people entered that particular space in that time.

Add at least 15 people in the tower, so in a 2 minute window there would be around 630 possible witnesses. In a 10 minute window, there would be around 3090 potential witnesses to the miraculous event. This would be a minimum, not counting planes departing or people in the concourse awaiting their loved ones.

So, if the maximum reported (about a dozen) saw the event, that would mean at the small side 1.9%, and at the big end .4% (.0039 rounded up)

So let's compare that to the "Miracle of the Sun", shall we?

Yes.

Let's.

According to your wikiwedia link, the estimated crowd size ranged from 30,000 to 100,000, depending on reports, however according to John De Marchi, who stayed at Fatima for years and interviewed people, he had "hundreds" of witness testimonies.

Let's really give him the benefit of the doubt and say that "hundreds" means 700. If 700 out of 30,000 attested to the event, that's 2%. If 700 out of 100,000 attested to the event, that means .7%

So, if we compare the two, we find that it is MORE likely that in 1917 the sun spun on its axis, danced and, "whirling, seemed to loosen itself from the firmament and advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge fiery weight." than it is that on Nov 7, 2006, twelve United employees saw a disc shaped thing in the sky that kind of suddenly disappeared.

Neat math. Real science there.

And so?

[meg]

Just saying, that's all.

[baron]

This believer has seen UFO's (Literally: Objects flying in the air that he could not identify), and didn't lose any sleep over them. Those mechanics alledgedly saw something in the air that they were unable to identify. Whatever led them to leap from "Hovering disc-like object" to "Extra-terrestrial space craft" is beyond me.

It was the mechanic's opinion. He concluded it was a craft. He also concluded that it resembled no earth-based craft he had witnessed. In an admittedly large leap of logic he appeared to suggest it was an extra-terrestrial craft. 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 mock this guy for expressing an opinion.

Commentary:

1) You'd think that after 911 people would be better skilled with Photoshop.

I'd expect everyone to be better skilled at Photoshop than this dismal effort suggests.

2) False data (Photoshopped images) detract from the validity of the original assertion.

Yes they do. That's hardly the fault of the original witnesses, though, is it?

3) They did not see anything because there was nothing to see.

Please provide evidence.

Nah, sorry, but that's just blatant rubbish.

As I said earlier, the problem is immediately jumping from, "What the hell's that!?!?" to, "Oh my god, it's a REAL UFO!"

First off, UFO = unidentified flying object. It doesn't mean alien space craft. It's important to be precise.

Secondly, why should it be of relevance what the witness concludes? If a witness accurately descibes their oberservation then why are you concerned with what interpretation they put forward? If you disagree with their conclusion then discount it. What's the problem? Notwithstanding the fact that if an observer sees something they believe is a structured craft, what possible reason can you come up with for them not stating this? Why should they not be allowed to speculate?

Intellectual snobbery is probably the answer you're looking for.

I have no problem with people seeing strange objects in the sky - I've seen two myself which immediately appeared inexplicable, but study quickly resolved the issue in each case.

They needed to take a leaf out of Sherlock Holmes and eliminate the possible answers before jumping to the impossible ones.

No they don't. They have no obligation at all to investigate. The only thing required of them is to provide accurate observational accounts and, if possible, evidence, such as photos. We, as critical thinkers, hopefully have the brains to perform evaluation for them and not jump up and down indignantly because they have the gall to actually express an opinion.

As long as people are happy to jump to conclusions, I'm very happy to jump on them with equal amounts of scorn and ridicule.

That says more about your critical thinking abilities than theirs.

Can you imagine what the first man to see an aurora thought? He probably thought the world was ending and his god arriving. When he still woke up the next morning and saw the same thing the next night, he probably started looking for other explanations.

Indeed. At the point he saw the aurora there would be no explanation as to what it was. Further investigation by qualified people would eventually establish the true nature of the aurora. Just imagine if this guy's peers had acted in the way you appear to condone - called him an fool or a drunk on the basis of his interpretation without pausing to consider the reported facts. Not much progress would have been made, would it?

[Cuddles]

It was the mechanic's opinion. He concluded it was a craft. He also concluded that it resembled no earth-based craft he had witnessed. In an admittedly large leap of logic he appeared to suggest it was an extra-terrestrial craft. 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 mock this guy for expressing an opinion.

Secondly, why should it be of relevance what the witness concludes? If a witness accurately descibes their oberservation then why are you concerned with what interpretation they put forward? If you disagree with their conclusion then discount it. What's the problem? Notwithstanding the fact that if an observer sees something they believe is a structured craft, what possible reason can you come up with for them not stating this? Why should they not be allowed to speculate?

Someone could see a 6 foot wide spacecraft at 1900 feet? We can mock this guy as much as we like because this is simply not possible. The fact that he then concluded that something which he could not have seen was an alien just makes it that much easier to mock him.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Secondly, why should it be of relevance what the witness concludes? If a witness accurately descibes their oberservation then why are you concerned with what interpretation they put forward? If you disagree with their conclusion then discount it. What's the problem? Notwithstanding the fact that if an observer sees something they believe is a structured craft, what possible reason can you come up with for them not stating this? Why should they not be allowed to speculate?
Why do some people insist on taking a skeptic's "ha, ha, what a clown" and shoving down his throat "I think we should immediately pass laws disallowing people from stating their opinions"? No one said anything about disallowing the witnesses from babbling about what they saw. Please don't confuse mocking and guffawing with legal action.


Just imagine if this guy's peers had acted in the way you appear to condone - called him an fool or a drunk on the basis of his interpretation without pausing to consider the reported facts. Not much progress would have been made, would it?
But we haven't done that, have we? We've discussed the facts of the matter as much as possible and reached some conclusions about what happened. As usual with UFOs, there probably isn't enough information to reach a definitive conclusion.

~~ Paul

[baron]

Someone could see a 6 foot wide spacecraft at 1900 feet? We can mock this guy as much as we like because this is simply not possible. The fact that he then concluded that something which he could not have seen was an alien just makes it that much easier to mock him.

You appear to have combined selected facts to suit your own ends. As I recall (I don't have time to check) the size quoted was between 6' and 24'. It does not say that the height of the object and its size were related in this fashion by any one observer.

Having said that, if you can't see a solid 6' object against a uniform grey sky at approx. 1/3 mile away then you need to visit an optician.

Furthermore you immediately state he's lying instead of allowing for the possibility he did not judge the size and / or height accurately. Again, to suit your own slanted view.

This may well be a hoax, or misperception, or whatever. However, I prefer to judge that on evidence, not ridiculous biased assumption.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Furthermore you immediately state he's lying instead of allowing for the possibility he did not judge the size and / or height accurately. Again, to suit your own slanted view.
I agree he certainly could be telling the truth. I do wish that observers would stop telling me the size and speed of unknown objects in the sky, however. Not that I want to pass a law against it, mind you. :D Can't people have a little bit more awareness of their own limitations?

~~ Paul

[UTGrad3920]

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?

[baron]

Why do some people insist on taking a skeptic's "ha, ha, what a clown" and shoving down his throat "I think we should immediately pass laws disallowing people from stating their opinions"? No one said anything about disallowing the witnesses from babbling about what they saw. Please don't confuse mocking and guffawing with legal action.

Come off it. Legal action? Passing laws? What on earth are you babbling about? Are you making a joke, because I can't believe anybody could infer that I was talking about legal action or forcing anyone to do anything.

But we haven't done that, have we? We've discussed the facts of the matter as much as possible and reached some conclusions about what happened.

Have you actually read the thread? Of course some people have done this, and still continue to do it, seemingly outraged that someone is attempting to apply balanced thinking to the matter.

This is one thread I think I will bow out of. It's clear what some people's preferred approach is, and it clearly can't be influenced by reason.

Yep, all these witnesses are stoned loonies and liars.

Great, that's another case solved.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Come off it. Legal action? Passing laws? What on earth are you babbling about? Are you making a joke, because I can't believe anybody could infer that I was talking about legal action or forcing anyone to do anything.
I was exaggerating. But you did say "Why should they not be allowed to speculate?" No one said anything about disallowing speculation.[/quote]


Have you actually read the thread? Of course some people have done this, and still continue to do it, seemingly outraged that someone is attempting to apply balanced thinking to the matter.

This is one thread I think I will bow out of. It's clear what some people's preferred approach is, and it clearly can't be influenced by reason.
You need to get a thicker skin, Baron.

~~ Paul

[Cuddles]

You appear to have combined selected facts to suit your own ends. As I recall (I don't have time to check) the size quoted was between 6' and 24'. It does not say that the height of the object and its size were related in this fashion by any one observer.

Having said that, if you can't see a solid 6' object against a uniform grey sky at approx. 1/3 mile away then you need to visit an optician.

Furthermore you immediately state he's lying instead of allowing for the possibility he did not judge the size and / or height accurately. Again, to suit your own slanted view.

This may well be a hoax, or misperception, or whatever. However, I prefer to judge that on evidence, not ridiculous biased assumption.

So while ranting on about how slanted my view is you lie about what I have said. What a good argument you make. Now go back and read my post again. At which point did I say anything about him lying? After you visit the optician that you obviuosly need more than me, you may notice that I said he it is not possible to say that a 6 foot object was 1900 feet away. It is not possible for the human eye to be anywhere near that accurate. Therefore, either he was mistaken or he was lying. As it turns out I think the former is far more likely, but for some reason you decided to suit your own slanted view by making some ridiculous assumptions instead of bothering to ask me, or even read what I said. Come back when you have an actual argument to make instead of lying about something that is easily refuted by the quote in your own post.

[R.A.F.]

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

Another assumption...

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

...and another assumption...

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"??

Please explain that to me.

[baron]

You need to get a thicker skin, Baron.

I'm not offended, just tired of repeating what should be common sense.

...and still the nonsense rolls in. Cuddles doesn't understand the concept of estimation and RAF doesn't understand the process of reasoning.

It's enough to drive a sane man mad :eye-poppi

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Cuddles doesn't understand the concept of estimation...
No? How do I estimate the size of an unknown object up in the sky? How do I tell how far below the 1,900-foot cloud ceiling the object is, and reconcile that with its unknown size?

~~ Paul

[R.A.F.]

...and RAF doesn't understand the process of reasoning.

If that be true, then why don't you explain it to me (as I asked) instead of being insulting??

[Cuddles]

If that be true, then why don't you explain it to me (as I asked) instead of being insulting??

Having now seen some of his posts in other threads, I think that's all we're going to get.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

...
Next they'll be seeing WMD's in every piece of luggage, the Loch Ness Monster off Navy Pier, and the Virgin Mary in a grease spot on the Dan Ryan expressway!
...-Fnord of Dyscordia-

If the Loch Ness Monster shows up off of Navy Pier I've got a 6mm w/ a 6x-24x scope with its name on it. Just need to find a taxidermist that can mount the thing.

[baron]

No? How do I estimate the size of an unknown object up in the sky? How do I tell how far below the 1,900-foot cloud ceiling the object is, and reconcile that with its unknown size?

~~ Paul

OK, I will try one last time.

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?

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."

Or maybe that's exactly what some people want to hear. Such an account would be that much easier to ridicule, wouldn't it?

[baron]

Having now seen some of his posts in other threads, I think that's all we're going to get.

Run out of steam already? No surprise there then.

[baron]

If that be true, then why don't you explain it to me (as I asked) instead of being insulting??

Spare me. You posted a sarcastic diatribe to which you pompously demanded response. Repost in a civil manner and I will reply.

[Hellbound]

Spare me. You posted a sarcastic diatribe to which you pompously demanded response. Repost in a civil manner and I will reply.
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.

[Hellbound]

To continue:

Why should it be of relevance what someone concludes? If someone accurately descibes their opinions then why are you concerned with what interpretation they put forward? If you disagree with their conclusion then discount it. What's the problem? Notwithstanding the fact that if someone sees an observer who has obviously interpreted far beyond their ability or capacity, what possible reason can you come up with for them not stating this? Why should they not be allowed to speculate?

Intellectual snobbery is probably the answer you're looking for.

[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 (http://forums.uforesearcher.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000177)...

...look strikingly similar to the picture found here? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/O'Hare_International_Airport)

What are the odds of that?

http://img164.imageshack.us/img164/4224/hareufo2yp7.jpg

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_the_Sun)?



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.

4871

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 d