According to this Chicago Tribune article many people saw what they claim was a UFO at Chicago’s OHare airport on November 7, 2006.
The witnesses seem to be credible sources - and considering they all work in and around the airport, I would imagine they know the difference between a weather balloon and something more out of the ordinary.
If nothing else, it dispels that old adage, “if aliens in UFO’s are so smart, why do they always land in a swamp?”
Given that the “U” means “Unidentified” and they weren’t able to identify it, I’m inclined to agree with them.
ok, screwed up that quote, just go to the bottom of the story on CNN.
I found that story interesting. You’d think that if any group of folk would be able to identify aircraft, it would be folk working at an airport. And there were a number of different people in different locations.
When they are talking about a metallic object hovering then shooting straight up so fast it “punches a hole” in the cloud cover, I have a hard time accepting the standard “lights on the clouds” explanation.
I’m still far from a believer, but would be interested in hearing more in depth info than an article from the Trib (not the finest news source.)
I find it interesting that it all centered around the United group, given O’Hare’s busy-ness I would think there would be a great deal more reports or confirmations.
– IG
A quick google found nothing but the AP story, until I got here - not what I would expect to be the most objective source.
And of course, you know how rare it would be for anyone to have a camera, videocam, or cameraphone in an airport!
I wonder if Uncle Cecil was traveling that day?
Living in Chicago, I’ve followed the story as well, but I have a slight hijack.
Since the all-knowing community of the SDMB that exists outside of Chicago knows better than we do what the “finest news sources” are (not that I’d know for sure, since about 5% of the members actually list a location in their profile), perhaps someone can offer a “fine news source” that isn’t just as reputed to be on some end of a supposed political agenda. All I ever see is this paper getting shit on as a decent source whenever it’s cited. Is this reputation something new, or did this occur at some point earlier in the paper’s 150 year history? Or, more likely, is it just because anti-establishment Dopers think it’s some kind of podium for the Illuminati? Maybe since the SDMB shares a common heritage in Chicago, it must not be a credible source for information either … so what the hell are we all doing here?
They reported a story on a very unusual event at O’Hare, and I think the source is the people who saw it, not the newspaper. I assume from Dinsdale’s comment that the fact they’re reporting on a story which is only ever found in tabloid rags isn’t actually the reason it’s non-credible … so what is?
Is there any mention in any of the articles on how long the object was there? I mean, if it was a fifteen second event I think I’d be running, or at least so shocked, so I don’t know if I’d have time to snap a polaroid.
To further the point in my previous post (and to contribute to the thread, of course) I found a link to the Tribune article.
There isn’t much mention of how long the object was in view before disappearing, but it was there long enough to be seen by several highly-skilled and qualified people and called in to the flight tower. I think the real interest in the story exists because these pilots feel they aren’t being taken seriously, and I get a little tired of the naysayers for the same reason they do, and this is the reason it’s gotten some publicity. No one is saying it’s an alien aircraft. UFO does not mean alien visitor, it means an unidentified object flying in the sky. I personally get sick of how whenever UFOs are mentioned, the people who don’t believe in aliens come out and say “why would E.T. fly a hundred thousand light years to come here, not visit our capitol, then turn around and disappear?” Not everyone is some nutjob that thinks it’s from another world, or even something from here which was reverse-engineered and retrofitted with technology from another world.
I’m sure there are others out there but if they’ve ever visited us, I don’t think they stayed long or have made many return visits. The entire phenomenon is simply military aircraft and natural/cosmic phenomena which we can’t explain because they’re so rare in occurrence. The fact is that a bunch of seasoned pilots saw something and got laughed at and dismissed raises an eyebrow and makes for a good story because these are people who know more than anyone what aircraft do and what they look like. An investigation would be useless because there’s no evidence to investigate. They all saw something, and it’s kinda creepy and disturbing that even they can’t tell what it was and that those in charge don’t believe them.
I’m sure the truth is that it was a stealth craft doing radar testing in cooperation with the airport. The story says there was no radar ping reported, and when you weigh in the fact that the brass claims no knowledge, it kinda seems obvious that it’s of a confidential nature.
Well said, anamnesis. 
It doesn’t have to be E.T. making a collect call to be interesting. Personally, I think military stealth technology like this would be wicked cool–given the size, shape, and speed the UFO was going, is this kind of thing possible?
Is it possible? Yes, in theory. Given our current technology (at least what we’re led to believe is current), then not really. “Anti-gravity” exists, it’s just a matter of generating a powerful enough magnetic field to overcome gravity’s pull, but such a device requires special superconductive metals to be energized with magnetic fields at extremely low temperatures, and in highly-controlled lab environments where such variables are carefully controlled. Even then, the effect is hard to control, which is why it would be incredible if we’ve engineered such a technology. Hovering a craft at a set altitude and then launching it off with near-instant velocity are possible in much the same sense that travelling just under the speed of light is possible, but such an aircraft would be so big due to its energy needs that the exercise would be self-defeating (given today’s power technology). It would probably not run on conventional fuels, it wouldn’t be stealthy, and it wouldn’t be power-efficient. Unless the government has mastered cold fusion or zero-point combustion and made it viable in more than a stationary capacity, I’d imagine such a craft would have to be very large to generate enough juice to power such an anti-gravity drive.
It could be something else entirely, of course. The UFO kooks talk about those black helicopters all the time and they hover around without making any noise at all, right?
All I know is, that if Mayor Daley ain’t down with it, then there won’t be any UFOs in Chicago.
::Mare Daley voice::"Whatdya mean UFO’s at O’Hare?? I don’t know about that, I mean sure we’re expanding the place for more traffic, alls I know is that look, they coulda come by Meigs, and been a hazard to the downtown buildings and all the [del]voters[/del] people there but since we had the foresight to rip that place apart, they, whoever they are and I’m not saying there’s a ‘they’ here, just that whoever or whatever happened here happened over O’Hare where we expect air traffic to happen. Is it good? Is it bad? I dunno, you tell me, I mean come on…UFO’s? Next you’re going to tell me there’s little green men walking around the Loop, right? hey, maybe the Cubbies can sign a couple, think they can pitch?? They need all the arms they can get on the Nort’ side, right, these little martians, they got extra arms? Geez, UFO’s, you’re killing me, maybe United needs to look into some kind of employee wellness plan, huh? I’m just hopin’ the Olympic committee doesn’t look at this and say whoa, what’s going on in Chicago? Of course, it’s us and LA, so I guess we got some room before we look like we’re nuttier than them eh?
Geez.
UFO’s!"
::end Da Mare voice::
I’ve read the Trib pretty much cover-to-cover daily for the past couple of decades, and off and on since the Daily news folded when I was a kid. My wife reads the front page, local, and Tempo sections daily. In my wife’s and my opinion - solely as consumers with no expertise in media, we have 3 basic reasons for questioning the quality of the Trib. Admittedly, none of them really bear directly on the accuracy of objective facts reported therein.
DAYUM, **MBG[/bu] - you’re GOOD!!!
I hate reporting like this. . .
So what you have there is that a PILOT saw the obect, right. But not really.
A pilot was told of the event.
He opened his window to get a better view.
The object was seen to suddenly accelerate straight up. . .
Notice that that paragraph doesn’t say “the pilot then saw. . .” We already know the object was seen to shoot upwards; we heard it from the baggage handler having a religious experience on the first page.
No where in the article do they quote a pilot.
Oh, and I’m sure the government is testing their “stealth aircraft” out over one of the busiest hubs in the nation. :rolleyes:
What you have here is a bunch of people who saw a weird grey/silver cloud formation who then talked it up in the break room until they were all convinced they saw a spaceship. But carry on. . .believe in your modern day faeires.
In related news: A house has been bombarded with a space divot! Or something. The UFO equivalent of one shoe by the side of the road, I imagine.
Maybe, maybe not. I think what we have here is a case of Trunk not reading what a couple people have agreed on in here. First, I’m don’t believe anyone really thinks it was a “spaceship”, and second, perhaps you can explain why several pilots/crew would unanymously agree to claim that they saw something unusual which can’t be conclusively explained … I suppose they want to jeopordize their reputation and credibility so they can switch careers to become modern-day faery tale writers?
I think the “cloud formation” explanation is just as stupid as the “alien spaceship” explanation. I’m not shouting conspiracy. Conspiracy theories and confidential aircraft may have ties to one another, but they are not one and the same. I may not be able to provide a cite to reinforce my belief that it was a confidential aircraft, but that is because it’s confidential. If the explanation is going to be anamolous strata forming animal shapes in the sky, then I think some precedent must exist for what sort of cloud cover it was that behaved this way and can thusly be cited as support … or am I asking too much now? Come on Trunk, tell me I believe in goblins and gremlins now too.
