FAA: O'Hare UFO probably just "weather"

[villager]

UFO at O'Hare? Some pilots thought so


CHICAGO - Federal officials say it was probably just some weird weather phenomenon, but a group of United Airlines employees swear they saw a mysterious, saucer-shaped craft hovering over O'Hare Airport last fall. The workers, some of them pilots, said the object didn't have lights and hovered over an airport terminal before shooting up through the clouds, according to a report in Monday's Chicago Tribune.

The Federal Aviation Administration acknowledged that a United supervisor had called the control tower at O'Hare, asking if anyone had spotted a spinning disc-shaped object. But the controllers didn't see anything, and a preliminary check of radar found nothing out of the ordinary, FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said.

"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." The FAA is not investigating, Cory said.

United spokeswoman Megan McCarthy said company officials don't recall discussing any such incident from Nov. 7. At least one O'Hare controller, union official Craig Burzych, was amused by it all. "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," he said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070101/ap_on_re_us/o_hare_ufo_sighting

[Delphinus]

1. May I be the first to say,

"Bullshit!"

[shanti]

44. yep

that's definitely a pant-load!

[Annces]

2. Bullshit #2

People can be such chickenshits.

[tridim]

3. Ignore the eyewitnesses and make up an official excuse even though they didn't see it.

Yea, that makes sense.

[Deep13]

8. That's how science works.

When eyewitnesses outside of a controlled experiment contradict known reality, it is the observation or the memory that is faulty.

[tridim]

19. What's this "known reality" you speak of?

I've never seen footage of weather phenomena that looked like a spinning craft, but apparently the FAA has. Release that footage and I'll agree that it's a known reality. Until then it's pure federal agency bullshit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

22. You've never seen footage?

the "known reality" of lenticular clouds...

[tridim]

31. That's a cloud, and it would be described as a cloud by anyone observing it.

The witnesses did not see a cloud, they saw a spinning disk.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. Looks like a spinning disk to me.

In fact, it is a spinning disk.

[tridim]

33. Well then, your observational skills suck.

When you see a cloud in the shape of a bunny, do you think it's a real bunny?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

34. No.

But I think it's a cloud in the shape of a bunny.

Just like lenticular clouds are spinning disks.

[tridim]

40. No, they're rare disc shaped clouds that occur over mountainous terrain in high turbulence

But I guess that's not important, O'hare must not be as flat as I thought it was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenticular_cloud

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. I'm not saying that it's what occurred over Chicago.

I'm saying it's "disk shaped weather phenomenon." It's something you apparently weren't aware of, given post #19.

[tridim]

52. It was a "spinning metallic disk" not a "disk shaped cloud" or

a "disk shaped weather phenomenon."

Why do you insist on ignoring the witnesses? They actually saw it, the FAA officials saw NOTHING!

I've seen funnel clouds in every stage of formation, and I would never claim a funnel cloud is an alien spacecraft or a UFO. Neither would the professionals at an international airport.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. Why do I insist on ignoring the witnesses?

Because they claim to have witnessed a flying saucer.

[tridim]

55. Just as I suspected,

This is all about those crazy, backwoods kooks working the tarmac at O'Hare. I suppose they were making moonshine and playing banjos on the job too?

"Man will never fly" eh?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. making moonshine and playing banjos?

Well, I guess they weren't using their cameras. What terrible luck.

"'Man will never fly' eh?"

Price of tea in china, huh?

[originalpckelly]

71. I don't think we should jump to any conclusions, one way or another.

We don't really know, nor does the FAA. They're just guessing, which is exactly the same thing you are doing. The only hard data they have is the lack of a radar signature. On the other hand, anyone who's claiming this is from another planet and had a relative of E.T. in it, is just guessing as well.

I've been looking for satellite photos to find out what kind of weather there was on Nov. 7, and to see if I can find the hole over O'Hare. All the usual suspects don't seem to have archives which go back that far. I'll have to do a Google search later when I have more time.

That'd be another hard piece of evidence.

[Deep13]

59. An object at night with no lights...

...while they were supposed to be flying the damn plane. How did they see it?

[MilesColtrane]

110. According to the Chicago Tribune...

"The sighting occurred during daylight, about 4:30 p.m., just before sunset."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/columnists/chi-0701010141jan01,0,303615,print.column?coll=chi-newsnationworldiraq-hed

As far as no pictures goes, I don't imagine that ground crews working on the tarmac of an airport usually bother keeping their cell phones on them. The extremely high decibel level would make calling someone, or checking voice mail impossible.

[Deep13]

23. Do you really expect me to describe all known fact...

...in an internet message board? Even if I somehow had all the knowledge in the world in my head, I might have other things to do than use it to explain the difference between knowledge on the one hand and and perception (to say nothing of wishful thinking) on the other.

Are you seriously suggesting that that something that pilots don't even know what it is proves that we are being visited by space aliens? How did weather become the unreasonable answer here?

[tridim]

26. When did I ever say anything about space aliens?

Have you ever seen anything that's both unexplained and corroborated by multiple witnesses in different locations? I have. The government explained it as a Russian booster rocket crashing to Earth, from the north, in Kansas, during the height of the cold war. Nothing to see here citizens! They lied to me then, and they're probably, ~PROBABLY~ lying now. It's SOP.

[Deep13]

28. Are you going to keep me in suspense?

The term UFO usually implies space aliens in most people's minds.

If not weather, then what?

[tridim]

29. If something is designated an "alien craft" it's no longer unidentified

All I'm saying is that the witnesses didn't see a fucking cloud, like our oh-so-honest government claims.

[Deep13]

39. Are you arguing semantics or are we back to space aliens?

They didn't say it was a cloud. They described a low cloud ceiling and a lot of airport lights. Shine a flashlight on one wall and then move it to the opposite wall. That light spot moved pretty quick, didn't it? Now shine it on the underside of your hand. Now move your hand away. That light spot shot up to the ceiling pretty quick, didn't it?

I should also point out that none of the witnesses are identified in this story. We don't know for a fact if anyone saw anything.

[tridim]

42. Would you trust a DU'er who was a witness?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=245&topic_id=30262

[Ravenseye]

45. Loan me 50 bucks

I'm good for it...

Do you trust me?

[tridim]

48. Take it up with purduejake, it's his report.

I have no reason not to trust his report (especially since it's corroborated), and no you can't have $50. :)

[Ravenseye]

98. well that's sort of my point

You don't know me. You don't know purduejake. He could have made it up back then with some baggage handlers that he works with. He might not even work there, and had heard it through a friend and tried to pass it off as his own.

If you don't know me or trust me enough to loan me $50, why initially trust the story of someone else you don't know? I'm inclined to NOT trust people online without corroborative evidence, and I'm not inclined to loan people I don't know $50 either.

Could he be telling the truth? Possibly. I'm good for the $50.

How can you tell either way though? You can't.

[Minstrel Boy]

49. The DU eyewitness made the post Nov 8,

the day after the event, and nearly two months before the national attention.

[Ravenseye]

99. Ah

So that makes it true? That doesn't affect whether I trust the story one way or another without corroborating evidence.

[Deep13]

56. Trust? I don't even know her.

Besides, I can trust someones intentions or honesty and still think she is wrong. Even if I agree that a witness saw what he or she says was seen, it does not mean I have to accept the conclusion. Further, the fact that she has a preconception about space aliens and was just reading about them tells me her perception and recounting of the observations might not have been objective.

If it was in daylight, where are the photos. An airport filled with people going on vacation and no one shot a picture?

Science is not about trust anymore than it is about faith. It is about proof.

[Occulus]

77. This is what cheeses my ass about doubters:

They've fallen for the fallacy that anything beyond technology we know of that we see in the skies daily MUST have come from outer space. This is precisely the reaction the people involved in these very real, very terrestrial projects want the public to think.

We're being had, and the doubters are aiding in that. Why, oh please explain to me WHY, these things people see in the skies cannot be things we built, here, in the USA, that are being kept secret for very good (or perhaps, not so good, for the public and rest of the world) reason? Can you honestly completely dismiss the possibility that these things are ours?

Because if they are, saying they're 'weather' makes a "plausible" cover or the project. Given that we don't know anything about how our money is being spent in these ultra-top-secret black-budget projects- which we are all very much aware exist, and have for decades- it's more than plausible that these people really did see one of these things.

As to what these same detractors are probably going to say about that idea at some point:

They 'buzzed' the airport probably because they wanted to test some new evasion technology or update. They didn't care about anyone seeing them, even people who have been in aviation for decades, because they know beyond any doubt that such people won't ever be seriously believed... as several posts all over all the threads about this incident have proven very well.

These things are ours. They use technology that fairly obviously negates dependence upon petroleum for their operation (but, obviously, not their production). That is a matter of national security, and it should be. They very likely don't want other countries to develop anything similar before we do- neocon thinking, that, but this time for good reason: developing a propellantless method of propulsion would cause the oil nations' influence to dry up overnight. With all the conflicts taking place all over the world, this technology is an ace up our sleeve, and it has to be played at just the right time or it will only fan the flames of war further.

I think the use of "it was just odd weather" over and over again, in case after case, proves my point: some of these things are very obviously not weather, yet they're passed off as such. It's SOP for these types of sightings. I won't touch the issue of "abductees"... I don't have a clue what's going on there.

Think about the SR-71, or the stealth bomber. Think about the stealth fighter. Now imagine, say, Heim theory being correct. The fact is, we don't know what black projects are going on, but we see the final result. That can't be helped; test flights must be done. Part of their job is to make you think you didn't see what you saw; part of their job is to make you think the experts on the subject are just 'confused'. Weather can look pretty odd, but it doesn't ever leave one with the impression of an aircraft that is engaging in controlled flight, with rapid changes in speed and velocity!

Weather doesn'tdo that. It can look odd, but clouds don't rapidly change direction or fly straight up. I'll readily buy that they're not alien aircraft, but that leaves only one other option. Why is this so very difficult to understand? IF there is nothing on or around Earth that is not natural, which was not made by the hand of man, THEN these are not alien craft... they're ours.

And that would be pretty damn cool, don't you think?

[Deep13]

81. An entire explanation pulled out of thin air.

There is no proof for any of it. So when do the flying saucer experiments observed in the 1950s go into production? When do these super-prototypes become production aircraft? We knew about the U2 and the SR-71 because someone had to build them and fly them. We know about the Lockheed Joint Strike Fighter because it is in production and being used in Iraq. We even know about the NR1 spy sub. When does Boeing start making flying saucers for the military?

[Occulus]

84. We hear about them because they were made public prior to actual use

Geez. This isn't hard to wrap your mind around.

So why haven't they actually used them?

Money. Power.

Nobody who has wealth generated by the consumption of petroleum products would ever want to see anything come about that would negate theie ability to attain that wealth. There are a lot of people who make money from petroleum products. They're only willing to relinquish their grip when and if that product runs dry, and not until. There is still more money to be made, which is one reason we're currently embroiled in multiple conflicts in the Middle East.

Boeingstarts making these for the military, and Ford and Chevy start making derivitives for the public, when the oil runs out, and not before. Why? The controllers of the oil are in charge, and always have been. They're called Presidents, legislators, andgenerally "oilmen". I don't need to point out that oilmen are in power at this very moment. I don't need to point out that they've been very influential for decades.

You don't need me to put two and two together. Just follow the money. These craft are ours.

[Deep13]

105. The Roswell flying saucer was a balloon...

...launched by the government to collect radioactive isotopes at high altitude in order to determine if the Soviets had tested an atomic bomb. The govt. never refuted stories about flying saucers because they would rather have people believe that than expose their spy program. That's one program whose purpose has been discovered.

[tigereye]

88. we just watched an interesting British doc about

military explanations for various UFO sightings. It was very interesting - sort of a different take on the whole issue. The guy was an aerospace writer of some sort.

the irony of all there questions is:

* disc shaped craft don't fly well in reality
* most high-level military aircraft developers can't wait to get their creations out there to start making them some dough -why hide them?
*why are these UFOs that are sighted, always defying typical flight patterns?
* the military doesn't really develop certain craft very well and takes years and tons of bureaucracy to do it, and often fails in the process
* we are still flying the shuttle and 60 year old rocket technology up to the space station- how sophisticated is that...

just a few questions raised by the film I saw.


Also, as far as aliens go, why do people always see those little grey guys? You would think there would be much more complexity out there. (I've been watching sci-fi shows too long...) ;)

[truth2power]

102. A book you might want to read...

The Hunt for Zero Point: Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology, by Nick Cook.


on edit: It amazes me how some here (I don't mean you, kgfnally) absolutely twist themselves into knots trying to convince everyone there's NOTHING THERE. There is something there.

[Deep13]

106. "There is something there."

Sure there is. I one jumps to enough conclusions that something could be anything one wants it to be. How do we know they are not angels?

[truth2power]

114. Ok. Let me clarify...

All of these people who have been seeing these objects, since the 1940s at least, can't be delusional. All of the sightings cannot be explained away as some sort of weather aberration.

IMO, they're actual aircraft of some sort. Likely they're part of a US government black program. They're probably working on some sort of antigravity propulsion system. I don't know why that should be shocking to anyone.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

65. How do we know that the eyewitnesses contradict reality if there is no investigation?

I think true scientists would conduct an investigation, acquire data regarding what each separate eyewitness observed, determine what those observations have in common and then submit the data to a scientist such as a trained meteorologist, instead of non-scientists at the FAA dismissing this as weather phenomena and "funny things" without conducting any investigation.

[Deep13]

67. Just what are they supposed to investigate?

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

70. They should acquire a detailed idea of what was observed

Science, after all, is all about analyzing and trying to understand the details from each observation. While you can't repeat the event in a controlled laboratory setting, you could contrast and compare the details of what was observed against similar observations on other occasions when atmospheric phenomena were the cause.

All we have are second and third hand interviews by journalists of one or two witnesses. Apparently, there were more than just a couple of people who saw this. If trained airline pilots say they saw what looked like an object hovering a few hundred feet above a terminal, then I would suggest that a trained scientist should be directly asking them what they observed. But then that would involve opening an investigation, which the FAA doesn't seem to want to do.

In other words, a political spokesperson at the FAA read a news story and, without apparent scientific consultation, is dismissing this as a "funny weather thing" and is suggesting the trained pilots are a bunch of nuts who believe in space aliens without even knowing for certain what these trained pilots actually saw.

The scientific thing to do is to actually find out what was observed and have the details of the observation be systematically analyzed. Here, the FAA apparently doesn't even want to know what was observed.

[Deep13]

74. In fairness to the FAA, that is not really their job.

If it does not affect air travel safety or regulation, then it is not really their concern. Other than that, it is hard to comment on a lack of evidence. It may be that no one could be bothered to collect witness statements. It could be that they did and the summary in the newspaper article is pretty much all that there is to it. It could be that they did investigate, found something significant and are not disclosing it. I hesitate to admit that possibility because it will encourage conspiracy theorists (as if they need encouragement) but it is possible at least hypothetically.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

80. Investigating reports of objects intruding into our airspace is precisely their job

If this involved a group of Boy Scouts on a camping trip talking about lights in the night sky, then I wouldn't bother with this story. But this seems to involve credible witnesses whose stories (what little of the details we know, at least) seem to coincide.

If trained pilots report what they believe to be an object hovering above an airport terminal, I would have thought that the FAA could have at least opened an investigation and have a scientist ask them for the intimate details of what they believed they saw. On its surface, this doesn't sound like the average crackpot Art Bell UFO story and that's why I'm a little amazed that the FAA won't even investigate it. Maybe it's a foreign country's drone that doesn't show up on radar. For the FAA to assume a priori that these witnesses are mistaking vague "funny weather things" for space aliens and outright dismissing it is disappointing to me, and unscientific on the FAA's part.

If the FAA did investigate it and is not telling us, then that is another matter.

[Selatius]

95. The fact that it showed up in controlled space makes it an FAA responsibility.

Can you imagine the death toll that would ensue if a civilian airliner crashed into another aircraft that wasn't supposed to be there?

[NashVegas]

72. If We Didn't Get Outside of Controlled Experiments

We'd not progress as a race.

[Deep13]

78. So far most of our progress has been from controlled experiments...

...including all medical advancements and most modern technology. Even our knowledge of human behavior and interaction has largely been shaped by controlled experiments.

[NashVegas]

85. I Disagree

Human behavior, for example, has been pondered over since there were humans. Controlled experiments in such haven't advanced us at all, they've just made us more exploitable to Madison Avenue.

[Deep13]

104. You are ignoring the advances in psychiatry and sociology.

Frankly, your remark is an ignorant statement.

[aquart]

4. Okaaaay.....WHAT weather phenomenon?

Does it have a name? Does it happen often? What are the weather conditions that cause it?

[Deep13]

5. The sighting or the explanation?

What are you calling bullshit?

[Caution]

6. It's amazing how irrational people can be when it comes to this stuff

[Sequoia]

7. Of course, it could very well be....

[Annces]

12. or this

[Deep13]

20. I have one of those in my kitchen.

I use it to make toast.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!!!!!!!!

Well, someone had to say it. But we all know it was really this guy:

[shain from kane]

9. "To fly 7 million light years..." This guy knows more than he is telling. He didn't have to say 7

million light years, but he did.

And that part about "...your gate was occupied ...". Does the airport have a specific gate assigned to interstellar voyagers? When that gate is occupied, no clearance from the tower is granted. What about re-fueling? Does the craft have to attempt to return on its 7 millon light year journey without fuel and proper maintenance? Or is it diverted to another spaceport?

[Minstrel Boy]

10. "That night..."

"The sighting occurred during daylight, about 4:30 p.m., just before sunset."

But a lot easier to suggest experienced pilots and airport employees were just "seeing weather" if you pretend the sun had set.

[RebelOne]

11. Why do they say it was nighttime?

It was 4:30 in the afternoon in the original story. It wasn't dark yet.

[wuushew]

13. Local sunset was 4:38 at O'Hare on 11/7/06

CDUS43 KLOT 080632
CLICHI


CLIMATE REPORT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
1230 AM CST WED NOV 8 2006

...................................

...THE CHICAGO-OHARE CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR NOVEMBER 7 2006...

CLIMATE NORMAL PERIOD 1971 TO 2000
CLIMATE RECORD PERIOD 1871 TO 2006

WEATHER ITEM OBSERVED TIME RECORD YEAR NORMAL DEPARTURE LAST
VALUE (LST) VALUE VALUE FROM YEAR
NORMAL
..................................................................
TEMPERATURE (F)
YESTERDAY
MAXIMUM 54 350 PM 75 1915 51 3 62
MINIMUM 46 1132 PM 13 1991 35 11 36
AVERAGE 50 43 7 49

PRECIPITATION (IN)
YESTERDAY T 1.68 1895 0.10 -0.10 0.00
MONTH TO DATE 0.02 0.70 -0.68 0.76
SINCE SEP 1 9.91 6.68 3.23 4.81
SINCE JAN 1 35.13 31.53 3.60 21.18

SNOWFALL (IN)
YESTERDAY 0.0 2.8 1941 T 0.0 0.0
MONTH TO DATE 0.0 T 0.0 0.0
SINCE SEP 1 0.3 0.3 0.0 T
SINCE JUL 1 0.3 0.3 0.0 T

DEGREE DAYS
HEATING
YESTERDAY 15 22 -7 16
MONTH TO DATE 178 143 35 79
SINCE SEP 1 790 656 134 456
SINCE JUL 1 790 671 119 456

COOLING
YESTERDAY 0 0 0 0
MONTH TO DATE 0 0 0 0
SINCE SEP 1 55 101 -46 220
SINCE JAN 1 935 830 105 1166
..................................................................

WIND (MPH)
HIGHEST WIND SPEED 8 HIGHEST WIND DIRECTION W (290)
HIGHEST GUST SPEED 16 HIGHEST GUST DIRECTION E (110)
AVERAGE WIND SPEED 4.6

SKY COVER
POSSIBLE SUNSHINE MM
AVERAGE SKY COVER 1.0

WEATHER CONDITIONS
THE FOLLOWING WEATHER WAS RECORDED YESTERDAY.
LIGHT RAIN
FOG
HAZE

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (PERCENT)
HIGHEST 100 700 AM
LOWEST 80 100 AM
AVERAGE 90
..........................................................

THE CHICAGO-OHARE CLIMATE NORMALS FOR TODAY
NORMAL RECORD YEAR
MAXIMUM TEMPERATURE (F) 51 73 1931
MINIMUM TEMPERATURE (F) 34 11 1991

SUNRISE AND SUNSET
NOVEMBER 8 2006......SUNRISE 633 AM CST SUNSET 437 PM CST
NOVEMBER 9 2006......SUNRISE 634 AM CST SUNSET 436 PM CST

- INDICATES NEGATIVE NUMBERS.
R INDICATES RECORD WAS SET OR TIED.
MM INDICATES DATA IS MISSING.
T INDICATES TRACE AMOUNT.

[mzteris]

14. Maybe

I'm in Madison, WI - a little west of Chicago - and it's kinda dark at 4:30 here.

[RebelOne]

25. I'm here in North Georgia and the sun doesn't set

here until after 5 p.m. That's why I was skeptical about it being dark at 4:30.

[Occulus]

82. I live in SW MI

nearly same latitude as Chicago.

There is still light in the sky at 4:30. For that matter, there is a slight amount of light in the west as I type this.

Conclusion: it was fairly light when this occurred. It definitely was not close to being dark. Half an hour later, perhaps, but not at 4:30.

[Dogmudgeon]

15. That's why it's called "Unidentified"

I've read a couple of news stories on the episode, and there isn't any information to go on, just the briefest of descriptions and the usual believers-vs-nonbelievers talking points.

So, who the hell knows what happened?

I'm mystified as to why people are so quick to either affirm their pet theories of the strange, or to "call bullshit". Assertions of certainty are useless in almost all cases where something unusual has happened. Many people on each side are positively evangelical about it -- about unidentified flying objects.

I'm not inclined to believe that they are alien spaceships, but then again, I'm not averse to saying "I don't know" at all. There is still plenty we don't know about our own world. And if, perchance, they really ARE spaceships, all the "I call bullshit" in the world isn't going to change it.

So ... when are we going to get some photos? Video files? Radar scan recordings? Satellite images? You know, evidence.

--p!

[rock]

16. "sometimes you can see funny things"

I saw a clown once.

[Der Blaue Engel]

27. Clowns aren't funny

:scared:

[htuttle]

35. Especially if they're from outer space!

[Der Blaue Engel]

90. Oh, no, you di'n't!

:spank: :scared: :scared: :scared:

[TechBear_Seattle]

17. "Probably"?

Is anyone actually bothering to investigate, or are they just dredging up stock responses from Project Bluebook without making any effort?

[Duer 157099]

18. We'll just have to wait until the Discovery Channel

does a documentary about it in a decade or so.

[HeeBGBz]

21. I know the climate is crazy BUT

What kind of weather would spin and shoot off through the clouds?

[redqueen]

36. I was wondering about that myself... n/t

[Goblinmonger]

24. Use the razor, people.

Is it more likely that it was some atmospheric/lighting combination that produced some optical illusion or was is a race of space aliens sending a special craft to observe the goings on in Chicago?

There is a hill near Chilton, WI that really looks like you are rolling up hill. The natural surroundings of that hill make that optical illusion possible. Some people believe that it is a native american buried at the bottom of the hill under the road "pushing" cars away from him. Nice little story; doesn't make it true.

[redqueen]

37. Is 'space aliens' really the only alternative to weather? n/t

[Goblinmonger]

41. No, but seems to be the main track of this thread.

Perhaps I am getting the wrong impression. I don't have a problem with the surveillance thingy, either.

[uppityperson]

62. I think it was the Russians. Or maybe the N Koreans latest technology

OK, probably not 1 of them, but another country's super secret new thingy-machine?

[Ravenseye]

43. That's funny.

Use the razor...I like that. I'll use that in the future.

Unfortunately a lot of people won't see it that way because rational thought is in short supply these days.

Personally, I really would like it if there were aliens, as long as they're at least somewhat friendly. I won't believe it's true though till there is corroborated evidence from multiple people. Not just observations, but physical and photographic evidence. In this situation, if say twenty people who had never met before took multiple pictures and video of the craft from multiple angles, and the UFO had been witness by hundreds more, I'd probably believe.

Use the razor. Maybe it was a UFO, but without any other evidence it's far more likely to have been just about anything other than space aliens.

[JackORoses]

46. based on your appication of the Razor,

you will never find any evidence of extraterrestrials.

Even if you were standing right in front of one, you would assume it was just a puff of clouds and some refracted light.

The simplest answer is not always the correct one.

[Goblinmonger]

47. How would "my application" of the razor

cut off an actual alien standing in front of me? Is there someone else there? 'Cause if it isn't verifiable, I would doubt myself, yes.

The answer that is the most contrived and has no verifiable evidence in its favor is usually not the the correct one. I know that much.

[Occulus]

79. It's even more possible that it's something we built

Forget the "weather excuse". It's a favorite among those who want others to NOT accept what they've seen.

These people saw something, and it wasn't weather. It also wasn't alien.

It was a black project WE developed. They all are, and always have been. The coverup has been so massive because it's such a huge advance. Such a reaction makes me think it negates the need for petroleum as used for propulsion.

Now what POSSIBLE motive might someone have for hiding such an advance, hmmm? Conspiracy to the Nth degree, to be sure... but with billions upon billions of dollars at stake, such conspiracy is to be expected. ALL the conspirers are either directly involved in the project and thus unable to talk, or stand to financially benefit from the project NOT seeing the light of day, and thus unWILLING to talk. And, I should add, corporations conspire to keep new products quiet all the time. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but we all know they try. That's what makes me dismiss people who don't believe large conspiracies on any particular subject are possible: it already happens all the time, every time a new product is developed. Large conspiracies are commonplace where large amounts of money may be involved.

They were NOT alien UFOs. They were OUR UFOs- like the SR-71, the stealth bomber, and the stealth fighters. I would also assume this includes the F-22 and the popularly assumed-to-exist Aurora.

It wasn't weather, and in fact rarely is.

[Selatius]

97. You ever thought it was a government aircraft instead of space aliens?

I remember people in the 1970s and 1980s were mistaking reports of flying wedge-shaped aircraft as UFOs when it turned out the government was flying F-117 stealth warplanes over the area to test radar invisibility.

[hunter]

30. I suspect this is some kind of domestic surveillance thing.

http://www.spawar.navy.mil/robots/air/amgsss/mssmp.html

[KittyWampus]

64. That's what I think. This was a test of dome drone.

[walldude]

51. Weather? Yeah.. and there are WMD's in Iraq..

:eyes:

[peacetalksforall]

54. We've had 40 (50?) years of government/public people creating

explanations - I think we'ver heard every possible explanation possible to man - by man.

[truthisfreedom]

58. all those witnesses, no published photos?

were all of their camera phones confiscated?

[Goblinmonger]

60. They were rendered useless

by the electromagnetic field of the UFO.

[Deep13]

61. And by the negative vibes of doubt.

:)

[karlrschneider]

87. All the electronic pixels were sucked away by the spinning black hole

...

[MilesColtrane]

111. It sounds like most of the witnesses were ground crew.

I don't know how useful carrying a cell phone would be in that high decibel environment.
Perhaps most of them would simply leave it in their lockers.

on edit: It might even be against safety rules for ground crew members to carry phones.
If you're texting, or you can hear well enough to check your messages, you're not paying attention to the big, loud, shiny things.

[knitter4democracy]

63. Someone page Mulder and Scully.

:)

[devilgrrl]

66. I'm telling you that it was Klaatu...

[villager]

83. coming back because we screwed up the "no nukes" thing, right?

well, we asked for it!

[SoCalDem]

68. pancakes in the sky..(IHOP subliminal ads)

[Deep13]

75. Sky-Hop?

:shrug:

[Ezlivin]

69. The government's plan has worked spectacularly well

Most people will reflexively say that any sighting of a "UFO" is the result of misperception or delusional wishes of the ignorant. It doesn't matter how educated or qualified the eyewitnesses are, whatever they saw is always discounted and usually discarded.

People who claim to see UFOs do so at risk of their reputation.

Two friends of mine are professional pilots with thousand of hours in the cockpit (one of them was a pilot-instructor on the C-5A). Both of them have seen unusual phenomenon and both of them said that it was standard policy to NOT report these things as the powers-that-be frowned at such reports and didn't pursue any investigations. These men have said that pilots will share these events with one another, but have long since learned that there is no point in alerting the authorities.

On May 9, 2001 the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. held an unprecendented conference in which government, military, and intelligence community witnesses testified to their direct, personal, first hand experience with UFOs. They were willing to testify under oath before Congress to finally clear the air.

I do not know what UFOs are, but if we had 400 people willing to raise their right hands and take an oath before Congress, what do we have to lose by giving them a chance to speak? How are we ever going to gain an understanding of this unexplained phenomenon?

If all 400 of these willing to testify are genuine nut cases, that would quickly become apparent. On the other hand if they are not....

[Deep13]

73. So why don't astronomers ever report UFOs?

I don't just mean professionals at those gigantic facilities, but the tens of thousands of amatures in this country alone. Why don't the people who spend the most time looking at the sky ever report seeing anything that can possibly be anything other than a natural phenomenon or something man-made? There's a lot of weird naked eye shit up there, but all of it is of known origin. There's aurora, bolides, Irridium flares, sun dogs, bright planets, meteor showers, satelites, ISS, refracted images of the sun near the horizon, green flash, zodiacal light, Sirius, icy clouds that reflect light airplanes that look like flying saucers when seen with the wing edge-on. The strangest thing I ever saw naked eye was three satelites traveling together like the corners of an equilateral triangle across the sky. I knew it was not a solid object because the background stars were visible between the satelites. I think someone told me it was a trio of USN spy satelites, but I forgot.

The point is, the people who really know the sky are rarely surprised.

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

89. Since you posed an interesting question, I googled it

Apparently, there have been quite a few reports from both professional and amateur astronomers reporting objects in the sky they could not explain, at least according to this compilation:

http://www.xdream.freeserve.co.uk/UFOBase/Astronomers.htm

On one hand, I tend to be very skeptical about those who assume that there are space aliens regularly visiting Earth, based only on anecdotal observations. However, to me it's also inconceivable that our human civilization on this planet would be unique in the galaxy; the only one in existence in the Milky Way and the only one capable of space travel.

I therefore will keep a skeptical eye, but with an open mind.

[Karenina]

92. What I find difficult to comprehend

is the hostility and need to ridicule or demean people who report some phenomenon in the skies. UFO is NOT synonymous with little green men.
I saw one years ago in Arizona. It was an object that was flying, obviously powered by some technology with which none of us who witnessed it were familiar, we stopped the car, got out to watch it, all decided simultaneously we'd seen enough, got back into the car and off we went. Whatever it was remains UNIDENTIFIED. :shrug:

[Deep13]

107. Will you describe it?

What time of day was it? In which direction did you see it. What did it look like. How was it moving, if at all? What were the weather conditions?

What brings amusement and frustration on the part of skeptics is not that something was seen but how quickly people are willing to ascribe extra ordinary explanations to it.

[Deep13]

109. A lot of those items lend themselves to naturalistic explanations.

Objects crossing the sun could be anything from sunspots to distant birds to eye floaters. The sun is notoriously difficult to observe and because much distorted when on or near the horizon. Reports of momentary bright spots on the moon have caused many amatuers to go looking for "transient lunar phenomena" supposedly caused by meteror impacts on the moon. The concensus is, however, that such sightings are physiological in nature, not unlike Lowell's Martian canals.

I wonder if we asked on CloudyNights.com if any of those amatuer astronomers have seen any "UFOs" what their answer might be.

[leftofthedial]

76. NO WAY was it a flying object

its delay on the tarmac was far too short for it to have flown into or out of O'Hare.

[GreenPartyVoter]

100. LOL

[Jeroen]

86. "Damn, I told you so...wrong planet, wrong airport"..."yup, sorry, hang on..!"

[eppur_se_muova]

91. The mother ship is attacking a whale! (pix)

Check out the downward-thrusting rocket nozzle on this one:


Well, now it's gone, but it left a huge hole!


They're attacking Mt. Rainier!


Even Mt. Fuji isn't safe!


Now they're attacking us with their...um...their BREASTS?


...or their bums?


Those can't be natural phenomena ... it must be mass hysteria! :D

[Sapere aude]

93. I wonder how many UFO sighting have left lasting evidence so that those who did not see it had

something they could use to support those who say they saw it?


There is no real hard evidence that extra terrestrials have visited earth. That is why I am always skeptical that UFOs are visitors from an other planet. Maybe a new kind of flying experiment from earth but not from another planet.

[Minstrel Boy]

96. Read Jacques Vallee if you want your mind expanded

in a rigorous fashion on the subject.

"It's a hoax!" and "It's Extraterrestrials!" is a false dichotomy.

Vallee titles on Amazon

[SmokingJacket]

94. I don't really "believe" in UFOs... but

I believe these people saw something very interesting and worthy of further investigation.

I think the vast majority of UFO sightings are plain lies and bullshit, but I'm willing to accept that I may be wrong.

"Known science" is constantly adding to its knowledge base.

[Strelnikov_]

101. Well, If The Mother Ship Arrives Sometime In The Next Two Years . . .

looks like the Randy Quaid character will be playing the President.

[Minstrel Boy]

103. some provocative air-to-ground transmissions

on this video viewable online, "Black Box Secrets".

Only fools think they know everything.

[dogday]

108. Nothing to see here, move along

just a bunch of clouds. :sarcasm:

[villager]

112. and those vote-counting machines really work! Honest!

n/t

[WI_DEM]

113. there is much we don't know or understand--I don't necessarily discount

the existence of visiting crafts from other worlds.