For those who have quickly dismissed the weather explanation for the November 7, 2006 O'Hare UFO sighting, that is all the rage these days in the world of ufology (and has even made a mark in the mainstream media), you might want to have a look-see at this, which was sent to me by a pilot friend of mine. You can see plenty of "fallstreak cloud" pictures here.
You can go here as well.
And here.
And here - scroll down to the question "how do holes form in clouds?" Note the answer, and then consider where the UFO was sighted on November 7th.
An interesting analysis can be found here (scroll down to January 3rd).
Again, I don't know if what the O'Hare witnesses saw was a weather phenomenon, but before one brushes aside official explanations in favour of aliens, or whatever, one should at least wait to hear from meteorologists and other experts, and examine all the evidence - including what appear to me to be sharply conflicting witness reports (6 feet in diameter to 24 feet in diameter, spinning / rotating vs. not spinning / rotating), which are always problematic.
Or is it too much to ask people to just calm down, and proceed rationally?
Meanwhile, I hear that Dr. Richard Haines is quietly investigating the O'Hare case, as opposed to popping up all over the media like Peter Davenport, making unsubstantiated claims of a cover-up. Indeed, all this media coverage is hardly conducive to convincing witnesses to come forward.
There is a right way and a wrong way to proceed with a proper investigation.
Paul Kimball
7 comments:
Absolutely. I'm no "pelicanist," but clouds really can look and behave in strange ways. I'm reserving judgment on the O'Hare incident, although I'm encouraged by the caliber of the witnesses.
Mac:
Yes, the witnesses seem sincere. But remember - their descriptions are different. According to news reports, the object was anywhere from between 6 feet in diameter to 24 feet in diameter, and was spinning, or not spinning, depending upon whom you ask. Those kinds of discrepancies are important, and tell us something about the quality of the observations. The best cases are the ones where independent witnesses describe something that looks and acts in the same way as other witnesses.
I have a gut feeling that this sighting is going to go down as much ado about nothing - except for that cadre of people, who are always there, who just cannot accept a reasonable explanation (which the "fallstreak clouds" may be), and which will always see cover-ups and conspiracies.
Paul
Hi Paul
Two quick points:
[1]. Most people have been putting the 'cart before the horse'. The real sequence is - UFO came first and it produced a HOLE second.
[2]. The cloud base was at only 1900ft, was not like these other cloud hole images, their base is over 23000ft, basically Cirrus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud
But yes, a few people need to slow down with all the theories.
Regards,
John Auchettl
Phenomena Research Australia
In my opinion there is another valid point of view relating to this case.
I notice you use the phrase "sharply conflicting" in describing the reports. If you and I both saw an airplane coming in to land at an airport, I can assure you that we would both have differing accounts of its size and movement. You might say it was 100 feet long and coming in at a 45 degree angle, I might say it was 145 feet long and coming in at a 60 degree angle. This is completely plausible and likely, because people are generally not experts on judging such things from a distance.
However, the one observation that we would both NOT have differing accounts on is that there was a real and solid object floating in the sky. Which is exactly how the accounts are relating to this Ohare sighting. To my knowledge, no witness has said, "Well, it might have been a cloud but it looked kinda like a ship". No, they all insist that they saw a solid disk shape in the sky.
This is the key observation. Multiple witnesses saw a solid object. This solid object was hovering over the airport, and then it took off into the sky. These are the observable facts that all the witnesses agreed upon. Facts agreed upon by all witnesses are very likely true.
Of course the weather phenomenon cannot be discounted entirely, but the above facts strongly imply that this is not the sighting of a weather phenomenon. This also shows, at least where I'm concerned, that their reports are not so "sharply conflicting" as one might initially conclude.
Thanks for your time, and good luck sifting through all the fluff. -B
Two quick points:
[1]. Most people have been putting the 'cart before the horse'. The real sequence is - UFO came first and it produced a HOLE second.
[2]. The cloud base was at only 1900ft, was not like these other cloud hole images, their base is over 23000ft, basically Cirrus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cirrus_cloud
John:
I don't disagree necessarily, which is why I said it's worth looking at, but...
I think it is incumbent on UFO investigators, when confronted with an explanation like "it was weather", to ask the authorities to explain that fully first, before running off and talking about conspiracies, or before simply dismissing it out of hand, which I've heard from otherwise rational people.
But yes, a few people need to slow down with all the theories.
I couldn't agree more.
Thanks for the input.
Paul
I notice you use the phrase "sharply conflicting" in describing the reports. If you and I both saw an airplane coming in to land at an airport, I can assure you that we would both have differing accounts of its size and movement. You might say it was 100 feet long and coming in at a 45 degree angle, I might say it was 145 feet long and coming in at a 60 degree angle. This is completely plausible and likely, because people are generally not experts on judging such things from a distance.
True enough, and a point I have made over and over again elsewhere, usually to people who simply dismiss eyewitness testimony out of hand.
However, the one observation that we would both NOT have differing accounts on is that there was a real and solid object floating in the sky. Which is exactly how the accounts are relating to this Ohare sighting. To my knowledge, no witness has said, "Well, it might have been a cloud but it looked kinda like a ship". No, they all insist that they saw a solid disk shape in the sky.
So it appears, although we do not have access to complete witness lists, or complete witness statements, so again I would urge caution, because what people are getting is only a piece of the story at this stage. Further, it is also possible that all these witnesses could have made the same error, while there could have been plenty of other folks who looked up at the same thing and saw nothing anomalous at all. That's the flip side of your observation above.
This is the key observation. Multiple witnesses saw a solid object. This solid object was hovering over the airport, and then it took off into the sky. These are the observable facts that all the witnesses agreed upon. Facts agreed upon by all witnesses are very likely true.
No, I would disagree - witnesses saw what they believe to be a solid object. That does not in and of itself make it so. There is a big difference.
For example, in chupacabra cases, multiple witnesses have often described seeing dark figures moving about their property, which they claim were chupies that killed their chickens, or whatever - but because they say it was a chupie doesn't make it a chupie. It just makes it something. Conclusions need to be drawn by independent investigators, who can examine all the evidence, and not by the witnesses, who would base such a conclusion only on what they saw, ot think they saw.
Of course the weather phenomenon cannot be discounted entirely, but the above facts strongly imply that this is not the sighting of a weather phenomenon. This also shows, at least where I'm concerned, that their reports are not so "sharply conflicting" as one might initially conclude.
Perhaps, although you would think that pretty much everyone could get straight whether the "object" was rotating or not. That seems like a fairly important detail to me, and something one would surely notice.
Thanks for your time, and good luck sifting through all the fluff.
And thanks to you for popping by, and your input. Much obliged.
Paul
Could someone even tell, reliably, the difference in an object of 6-24 ft at a distance of over 1,900 ft? What if the object was 15 ft - wouldn't a 6-24 estimate be about what one would expect?
Also, I looked at the pictures of the holes in the clouds -- I'd note the difference in ceiling level AND that those holes were supposedly formed from the `top' of the clouds -- not from the bottom.
The FAA `explanation' sounds like the C.U.T.E. explanation - the Compulsive Urge To Explain.
Post a Comment