D'Arcy O'Connor - Some Oak Island "theories"

Author D'Arcy O'Connor discusses some of the more "out there" theories for Oak Island - could it be UFOs, leprechauns, or German submarines in World War II?



Mac Tonnies should take note of the leprechaun theory - cryptoterrestrials, perhaps?

Paul Kimball

O'Hare: If Photos or Video Exist, Will We See Them?

Rumours abound that video exists of whatever was seen over O'Hare airport on November 7, 2006, taken by a pilot, and that it may be released soon. But some are wondering if we will ever see any footage or photos.

Over at the UFO Mystic Blog of my pals Greg Bishop and Nick Redfern, for example, one reader, in response to a comment of mine, asked:

You have to wonder, though, if pictures were taken by the pilots, would they be willing to come forward with them given the poor reception UFO reports made by pilots have been given by the airline industry historically.

My response?

I don’t wonder at all - of course they would bring the photos, or video, forward, unless perhaps the photos or footage actually showed something mundane, which would indeed make the pilots (and a lot of other people) look pretty silly. After all, these guys have already come forward and offered their witness accounts (i.e. they’ve taken the most difficult step) - surely offering photos or video that would potentially corroborate those accounts wouldn’t be much of a leap at all (and might actually make them some money, if it was really sensational stuff).

Everybody wants to be vindicated, after all. It's human nature.

Further, to my knowledge, there has never been a pilot fired for making a UFO report, or putting forward pictures. Indeed, if a pilot or other employee was fired for doing so (when the FAA itself states explicitly that any UFO sightings should be reported to organizations like NUFORC, or the police) they would have a pretty good case for unjust dismissal, particularly where they’re unionized.

If photos exist, therefore, I expect we will see them - unless, as I said, they show something that might indeed make the pilots et al look foolish, like… well, nothing anomalous.

However, if video or photos do exist that show something out of the ordinary, then they will be made public, and fairly soon - at which point things could get really interesting.

Paul Kimball

O'Hare: The FAA "Cover-Up"

A commenter here on a previous post wrote:

The fact that bothers me the most about this case/sighting, is that the FAA denied anyone reported a sighting until threatened with a Freedom of Information Act request. Only then did they admit that the sighting had been reported, without the request being filed. Why? Did their files have a memory lapse?

This is not on the face of it an unreasonable question, until you realize a couple of things (that Peter Davenport et al won't tell you). It deserves an answer, before the "cover-up" meme runs out of control, and becomes part of the story that is inseperable from the evidence of the sighting itself.

First, government is not some monolithic entity. Often, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is up to, or what information it might have. The FAA is a large organization. To expect everyone within it to know everything that has gone on everywhere is unrealistic. Further, "government" is staffed not by infallible robot drones, but by people - people who make mistakes, just like you, and me.

I speak from experience, having worked for government in the past. I recall once where a phone call was referred to me at the Nova Scotia Film Development Corporation (a much smaller entity, to be sure, than the FAA), and a question asked, and I said, "nope, we don't have that information." Sure enough, we did - the person in the office (i.e. the Director of Marketing) next to me had it. That sort of thing happens all the time. If, instead of trying the Director of Marketing the caller had launched a Freedom of Information request, he would have gotten the information - and, no doubt, if he had been like Peter Davenport et al, he would have accused me of being part of a "cover-up".

Further, look at the FAA reporting guidelines. They state specifically that UFO reports are not taken by the FAA, but rather are to be directed to civilian groups or scientific bodies that study this sort of thing. Here is their policy:

9-8-1. GENERAL
a. Persons wanting to report UFO/Unexplained Phenomena activity should contact an UFO/ Unexplained Phenomena Reporting Data Collection Center, such as the National Institute for Discovery Sciences (NIDS), the National UFO Reporting Center, etc.

b. If concern is expressed that life or property might be endangered, report the activity to the local law enforcement department.

It is not unreasonable, therefore, for an FAA employee to mistakenly assume that there was no call to them about a UFO.

Finally, and this is the kicker, if there really was this deep, dark cover up to which Davenport and others have begun to allude, do you really think a simple FOIA request by a reporter would be enough to shake the tree?

Hardly.

The simple answer is almost always the right one in cases like this - the FAA employee who answered the initial inquiry (which was probably not a high priority item) made a mistake, and then, when forced to do some more thorough internal checking, the FAA rectified that mistake.

That's not the "sexy" story, but it's the one that makes the most logical sense.

Paul Kimball

Photos from concourse C at O'Hare

Here is some pretty nifty time-lapse photography done at one of the gates (10, I think) on concourse C at O'Hare.



Too bad this guy wasn't at O'Hare on November 7, 2006!

Seriously, I hope someone did get a photo, because without it, all you've got is just another witness case, better perhaps than some (or even many), but not as good perhaps as others (Kelly Johnson, 1953, as an example), of which there are literally thousands over the past several decades, none of which prove anything definitive in terms of the nature of what UFOs may be, and none of which have gotten the study of the UFO phenomenon any further along today than it was almost sixty years ago.

Unless, of course, you believe that the sheer number of reports alone proves something, in which case you should probably start taking witness reports of "miracles" seriously as well, because there have been far more of those over the course of human history than reports of UFOs.

Paul Kimball

Where is the O'Hare UFO Photo - Vol. II

Besides being an ace cameraman, my good friend and colleague Findlay Muir is one heck of a photographer. Like most people these days, he always has some form of camera nearby - unlike most people, he gets really, really good shots (most people settle for average shots).

For example, when he and I were in O'Hare in November, 2005 (sorry, no UFO), Findlay had his camera at the ready, and got all sorts of nifty shots, including the one above on the tramway between terminals.

Here's another one, this time from Blackpool, England, when he and I were there on a day off from filming Best Evidence back in June, 2006. I can guarantee you that pigeons move fast (you would be surprised) - but Findlay was faster.

If Findlay had seen a UFO at O'Hare, or anywhere else for that matter, he would probably have a picture of it - especially if it was hovering before it zipped off.

Now Findlay is a professional, so maybe he moves just a bit faster than your average person. But one look at YouTube, or Google Video, or Flickr, should be enough to convince you that non-professionals can move pretty quick these days, and get the shot. Indeed, we live in the video era.

So, I ask again - where are the O'Hare UFO photos?

Peter Davenport has been all over the media trumpeting this story (good, no doubt, for NUFORC's profile, at least in the short term). Surely he asked the witnesses if they had been quick enough to take a photo (if it was me, this would be the first question I would ask)?

In the two months between when the story was first reported, and when it broke last week, surely Mr. Davenport, or someone else, thought that maybe there should be a photo, and that this would be important, one way or another?

Did it ever cross his mind, before he went to the press, that maybe he should hold off until the story had been properly investigated?

Did it ever cross his mind that perhaps it would have been best to wait, and make sure all the "t's" were crossed, and the "i's" dotted, before making this a big cause celebre? Apparently not.

The O'Hare story, for good or ill, will now define how the public views the UFO phenomenon for the next few months, maybe even years.

Let's just hope that Mr. Davenport hasn't sold us a pig in a poke.

Let's hope he, or someone else, finds that photo that should be there.

Update: Stan Friedman was on the X-Zone this evening (you can catch it in the X-Zone archives). Rob McConnell asked Stan about why there were no photos, and Stan responded - I paraphrase - that it would have been impossible to get a good shot of a relatively small object at a height of 1,900 feet or so (although that appears to be the height of the cloud cover it "shot up through", so "it" must have been hovering at a lower height than that).

This is patently absurd. You can't have it both ways - you can't assert that people can make a perfectly good sighting of an "object" at somewhere under 1,900 feet, and observe details such as whether or not the "object" was rotating, on the one hand, and then say, "but it was too high up to get a decent photo." Especially when the supposed "object" was just sitting there for a prolonged period of time.

Paul Kimball

Where is the O'Hare UFO Photo?

When I was in Rendlesham Forest back in June, 2006, filming for Best Evidence: Top 10 UFO Cases, my DOP Findlay Muir and I were suddenly buzzed by an RAF helicopter (I presume it was RAF) - we heard it coming a few seconds in advance, but because it was so loud, and because things echo a lot in the forest, even today (it is actually a pretty spooky place, even in the daylight), we had no idea which direction it was coming from.

Nonetheless, I had my old (six years) digital camera out - it's hardly cutting edge technology, and there is a pause of a second or so when it takes a photo. Still, as the helicopter flew overhead, literally appearing from the treeline, I managed to get a shot before it flew off (it eventually came around again and again - they were seemingly conducting landing exercises on the nearby airstrip).

Findlay, who had his very large, unwieldy and heavy Beta Camera on his shoulder, also managed to get some footage of the quick-moving chopper.

Now, if we could manage this, where are all of the photos from the O'Hare UFO sighting back on November 7, 2006? Remember, unlike our helicopter, which was moving fast (we only has a few seconds to react), the O'Hare UFO apparently hovered for a while, in plain sight, in front of witnesses, at one of the world's busiest airports.

The story is all over the news. And yet not one photo has surfaced.

Perhaps one will - but until it does, I'll go with the official explanation, because if Findlay and I can get a good photo and footage of a fast moving object in the middle of a forest, I find it impossible to accept that no-one got a good, clear photo or footage of a hovering UFO at O'Hare International Airport.

Paul Kimball

November, the Midwest United States, Weather, Holes in the Sky, and UFOs

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