New Sighting in Chicago

[FOCrumbo]

New Siting in Chicago (O'Hare)

Assuming that this is no hoax and that the witnesses gave a reasonably accurate description of what they saw, what kind of scenario can we put together?

The fact that it was spinning, that witnesses described it as anywhere from only 6 to 24 feet, and that it shot straight up into the air at an incredible velocity, leads me to believe that the object was not a vehicle which carried a living being or beings. Call it a reconnaissance machine, a drone. ((The being(s) could be very small, of course, and of a nature so as not be flattened by the rapid acceleration or disoriented by the spinning.))

Why would such a thing hover over O'Hare? If it were a device of terrestrial design there would be no need. Anybody from any country can go to O'Hare. No need to spy. If another country on Earth had developed this technology, why would they reveal it in so stupid a stunt? I believe the machine was from elsewhere.

Here's a train of thought. Suppose that a distant race of beings send out numerous probes to search for life and other points of interest. The probe during its travels is programmed to investigate activity which might indicate life. Approaching Earth one of the first things it's going to pick up is all the air traffic around O'Hare airport -- the second busiest airport on the planet. It drops down for a look (or whatever sense it uses to monitor). Then, for whatever reason, it believes that it's been discovered. It does what it's programmed to do--escape as quickly as possible. Then we can suppose it transmits the information back to its homeworld perhaps hundreds of thousands of light years away and continues on looking for other inhabited worlds.

I think we've just been catalogued--or will be once the beacon reaches the homeworld which may be thousands of centuries from now.

 

[CapnG]

New Siting in Chicago (O'Hare)

The fact that it was spinning, that witnesses described it as anywhere from only 6 to 24 feet, and that it shot straight up into the air at an incredible velocity, leads me to believe that the object was not a vehicle which carried a living being or beings. Call it a reconnaissance machine, a drone. ((The being(s) could be very small, of course, and of a nature so as not be flattened by the rapid acceleration or disoriented by the spinning.))

Not necessarily. Any vehicle which can defy gravity can probably defy inertia as well.

I think we've just been catalogued--or will be once the beacon reaches the homeworld which may be thousands of centuries from now.

Assuming they use radio waves to communicate and not some superspace/subspace/hyperspace/telepathic means of transmission

 

[FOCrumbo]

New Siting in Chicago (O'Hare)

Not necessarily. Any vehicle which can defy gravity can probably defy inertia as well.

Assuming they use radio waves to communicate and not some superspace/subspace/hyperspace/telepathic means of transmission

Both good points. I can also imagine a shell spinning around a stable core and the estimates of the size could be way off. Still an "unmanned" craft, touring space makes sense to this earthly mind.

 

[CapnG]

New Siting in Chicago (O'Hare)

Both good points. I can also imagine a shell spinning around a stable core and the estimates of the size could be way off. Still an "unmanned" craft, touring space makes sense to this earthly mind.

It's certainly plausable. But if the interior was void of inertial effect (besides, we presume, some form of artifical gravity for the comfort of the occupants) then it would always be perfectly still from the occupant's perspective no matter how fast the exterior was moving or spinning.

 

[FOCrumbo]

New Siting in Chicago

Some unsorted thoughts:

The Sears Tower in Chicago is 1,454 feet high. Witnesses said that the object was just below the 1,900 foot cloud deck (described by one pilot as 1,500 feet above the ground). Estimates of the size of the object ranged from 6 feet to 24 feet. That's a discrepancy but at only 1,500 feet those estimates should be at least ball-park accurate. I wouldn't guess the object was 200 feet in diameter, for example. What I'm trying to determine is the thickness/height of the object. If it were 24 feet in diameter, how thick could it have been? Three feet? At least one witness described it as a Frisbee (as opposed to a sphere for example) which gives an idea of the general shape. Doesn't give much head room for an alien passenger, does it? Is the pilot the size of a Barbie doll? Is the pilot lying/floating parallel with the surface of the earth? Is the pilot not suseptible to claustrophobia as we humans are? Is it a shuttle craft which will return to a mother ship waiting for it on the dark side of the moon? Even if it popped out of some dimensional worm hole it would seem an uncomfortable fit for a bi-ped of anything like our scale. Everything still suggests to me a pilotless drone. I speculate that the drone didn't particularly have earth as its destination--just stumbled across us maybe checking out radio signals it detected coming from out direction. It might be one of many such drones wandering across space mapping out worlds with life or other points of interest. I realize that's a lot to deduce from this one sighting, but you have to try to piece together something which makes sense.

This is a rhetorical question: why does it spin? (Not every witness described it as spinning.) If it is a anti-gravity/inertia-less device then why does it need to spin? My primitive earthman brain associates spinning with gyroscopes, stability. Maybe it's not anti-gravity. Maybe it's some propulsion system we don't know about. Remember the movie "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers?" Ray Harryhausen (the special effects animator) said he made his flying saucers spin to make them more visually interesting. Maybe spinning had something to do with monitoring the area.

The material was not described in what I read as metallic. It was described as dull gray. "Dull gray" does not necessarily translate into metallic. Even on earth we have materials which are dull gray and not metallic: plastic and graphite (bike frames, for example). Light, strong. Might be more difficult to detect on radar (if the object was not detected on radar). Might be some material we don't yet know about.

The fact that there are no photos is actually encouraging. If it were a hoax there'd be plenty of video footage and still photos. Remember last year's Australian UFO flap!

 

[Tony2007]

New Siting in Chicago

Some unsorted thoughts:

The Sears Tower in Chicago is 1,454 feet high. Witnesses said that the object was just below the 1,900 foot cloud deck (described by one pilot as 1,500 feet above the ground). Estimates of the size of the object ranged from 6 feet to 24 feet. That's a discrepancy but at only 1,500 feet those estimates should be at least ball-park accurate. I wouldn't guess the object was 200 feet in diameter, for example. What I'm trying to determine is the thickness/height of the object. If it were 24 feet in diameter, how thick could it have been? Three feet? At least one witness described it as a Frisbee (as opposed to a sphere for example) which gives an idea of the general shape. Doesn't give much head room for an alien passenger, does it? Is the pilot the size of a Barbie doll? Is the pilot lying/floating parallel with the surface of the earth? Is the pilot not suseptible to claustrophobia as we humans are? Is it a shuttle craft which will return to a mother ship waiting for it on the dark side of the moon? Even if it popped out of some dimensional worm hole it would seem an uncomfortable fit for a bi-ped of anything like our scale. Everything still suggests to me a pilotless drone. I speculate that the drone didn't particularly have earth as its destination--just stumbled across us maybe checking out radio signals it detected coming from out direction. It might be one of many such drones wandering across space mapping out worlds with life or other points of interest. I realize that's a lot to deduce from this one sighting, but you have to try to piece together something which makes sense.

We always tend to think of alien craft as being in relative scale to human size. Assuming your estimations are correct, and the craft is only three feet thick, perhaps this particular brand of ET aren't very tall? Maybe two feet in height? There are some descriptions in the "close encounter literature" that describes them as being child-like in height and form.

On the other hand, who says it needed to be manned? If humans have developed the art of unmanned reconnaissance why not ETs? On the flip side, they would have little to worry about from our anti-aircraft technology if they can travel lightyears to get here. If they wanted to observe, they could easily send a manned ship and avoid being shot down with that kind of technology.

This is a rhetorical question: why does it spin? (Not every witness described it as spinning.) If it is a anti-gravity/inertia-less device then why does it need to spin? My primitive earthman brain associates spinning with gyroscopes, stability. Maybe it's not anti-gravity. Maybe it's some propulsion system we don't know about. Remember the movie "Earth vs. the Flying Saucers?" Ray Harryhausen (the special effects animator) said he made his flying saucers spin to make them more visually interesting. Maybe spinning had something to do with monitoring the area.

I'll refer to Jeff Ritzmann on this one. His whole experiential theory has different people seeing different things at the same instant. One person saw one thing while another person saw a completely different thing, even though the two were looking at the same object.

If it was spinning, it was probably because whoever was looking at it expected it to spin.

The material was not described in what I read as metallic. It was described as dull gray. "Dull gray" does not necessarily translate into metallic. Even on earth we have materials which are dull gray and not metallic: plastic and graphite (bike frames, for example). Light, strong. Might be more difficult to detect on radar (if the object was not detected on radar). Might be some material we don't yet know about.

I suppose. Then again not every metal is shiny and chromed.

The fact that there are no photos is actually encouraging. If it were a hoax there'd be plenty of video footage and still photos. Remember last year's Australian UFO flap!

I disagree. We need photos, and we need good ones, otherwise it will just be another eyewitness scenario that we won't get much out of.

Apparently one of the pilots shot some photos on a digital camera. If they're smart, some legal witness will be present when they extract those photos so as to avoid any "doctoring" allegations.

 

[CapnG]

New Siting in Chicago

You're making assumptions based on limited witness testimony. For instance, this thing was high in the air, so even viewed from far away, you'd still tend to be under it. Given the regressive nature of perspective, the object could have actually been more of a dome on top and more flat on the bottom but would appeal to be a frisbee from a ground based observation (architects use these sorts of tricks all the time).

But let's say it was a frisbee. If we go with the popular literature, the occupants were possibly greys, aliens reported to be between 3-4 feet tall. When seated, they'd be between 2-3 feet tall. Reconsidering the dome possibility for a moment, it would be considerably less cramped.

As to the spinning, well, maybe it's not spinning at all, maybe ther's just some sort of distortion or phase shift or whatever you want to call it that our brains can't really interpret so we we assume it's spinning.

It's all rather moot though. We can't even be sure it was ANYTHING at this point, given the nature of the incident, lack of visual evidence and the usual statement-denial-dismissal routine these sightings tend to follow.

 

[FOCrumbo]

New Siting in Chicago

I'll refer to Jeff Ritzmann on this one. His whole experiential theory has different people seeing different things at the same instant. One person saw one thing while another person saw a completely different thing, even though the two were looking at the same object.

If it was spinning, it was probably because whoever was looking at it expected it to spin.

I don't think we need to rely on paranormal causes to account for differences in witness testimony. It's common for witnesses to remember events differently in such pedestrian matters as drive-by shootings and car accidents.

I suspect the object was spinning. Think about a frisbee as it spins. At a distance you might not detect the spin even though it's spinning rapidly. Sharper eyes might see it. If you've read the article, the people who saw this were deeply shocked. The Tribune:

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

These people _saw_ something which they clearly understood was not of this world. Something which has shaken them to the very roots of their perception of the world. They can be forgiven if they missed the spinning of a perfectly symmetrical shape.

 

[FOCrumbo]

New Siting in Chicago

You're making assumptions based on limited witness testimony. For instance, this thing was high in the air, so even viewed from far away, you'd still tend to be under it. Given the regressive nature of perspective, the object could have actually been more of a dome on top and more flat on the bottom but would appeal to be a frisbee from a ground based observation (architects use these sorts of tricks all the time).

Good point. A half sphere isn't something which I've heard reported previously, but that doesn't mean this object wasn't.

As to the spinning, well, maybe it's not spinning at all, maybe ther's just some sort of distortion or phase shift or whatever you want to call it that our brains can't really interpret so we we assume it's spinning.

That's an interesting thought. So you're saying what was perceived as spinning could be something else. Maybe a method to block radar?

It's all rather moot though. We can't even be sure it was ANYTHING at this point, given the nature of the incident, lack of visual evidence and the usual statement-denial-dismissal routine these sightings tend to follow.

I think this is significant. It's recent. It was over an important but very public area. It's got the attention of the FAA in spite of their protestations of the opposite. It's been a real eye-opener for me, at least. I've been a skeptic, but this pushes me over the edge. This is not a case of balloons or weather phenomenon or hallucinations or a hoax.

And let's give a cheer to the Chicago Tribune for using the Freedom of Information Act to pry out some of the story from the FAA. It appears there really IS a cover-up.

To anyone who says conspiracies aren't real, whisper to them the one word: Watergate.

 

[CapnG]

New Siting in Chicago

Good point. A half sphere isn't something which I've heard reported previously, but that doesn't mean this object wasn't.

Not quite a half sphere but "bulgier" on top than on bottom. Poke around and you'll see some craft of this sort in photos taken in the 20s and 30s.

That's an interesting thought. So you're saying what was perceived as spinning could be something else. Maybe a method to block radar?

I haven't a clue, just speculating

I think this is significant. It's recent. It was over an important but very public area.

Naturally it's significant, I'm just saying the machinery of denial and obfuscation is already well in place, sadly.

To anyone who says conspiracies aren't real, whisper to them the one word: Watergate.

Or the assination of Ceasar, or the plot to kill Hitler or... well.. I could go on but there's a whole forum for these

 

[mjw]

New Siting in Chicago

Just got sent a msg from someone saying that this is a photo of the UFO that was over O'Hare. Dont know if it is or not but I thought I would post it.

 

[Tony2007]

New Siting in Chicago

Can you say who sent you that photo?

 

[CapnG]

New Siting in Chicago

My instantaneous reaction: water droplet on lens.

 

[mjw]

Wouldn't a water droplet pretty much completely cover the lens on a cellphone camera? I mean I think you can tell that the pic wasn't shot with a Nikon D2Xs with a 600mm lens.

 

[mjw]

New Siting in Chicago

Can you say who sent you that photo?

You did. Thanks Tony!

 

[mjw]

 

[Tony2007]

New Siting in Chicago

You did. Thanks Tony!

Oh yes... now I remember being an airline pilot...

 

[CapnG]

Wouldn't a water droplet pretty much completely cover the lens on a cellphone camera? I mean I think you can tell that the pic wasn't shot with a Nikon D2Xs with a 600mm lens.

Alright not on the lens but what about a window, from behind which this was taken? Assuming it's a real picture at all, that is.

At any rate, if it WAS a cellphone camera then all the photoshop reprocessing in the world isn't going to make that tiny grey blob anything but a large grey blob.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

Info. on the "hoaxed" photo.

O'Hare Airport UFO Sighting -- UPDATE: Photos & Analysis, page 27


Funny. David and I posted at the same time about the same thing. Hope the link doesn't spoil the show for anyone.

 

[David Biedny]

Alright not on the lens but what about a window, from behind which this was taken? Assuming it's a real picture at all, that is.

At any rate, if it WAS a cellphone camera then all the photoshop reprocessing in the world isn't going to make that tiny grey blob anything but a large grey blob.

You might be surprised. Jeff Ritzmann & I are working on an in-depth analysis of this image, and Jeff has come up with some fascinating twists to this situation and photo. We're in the middle of the process, and we'll be recording a special segment for the next week's Paracast show, stay tuned.