Approx. 10 mi. SW of McMinnville, Ore. on the farm of the witnesses:
123 19’ 50”
W, 45 06’ 15” N
UPDATING AN UNSOLVED MYSTERY
CURRENT CASE IN THE MEDIA
Paging Mulder and Scully: “Tribune’ Probes UFO Sighting
By E&P Staff and The Associated Press
Published: January 01, 2007 6:30 PM ET
CHICAGO Federal officials say it was probably just some weird weather
phenomenon, but a group of United Airline 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.
The Tribune account, however, struck a more serious nerve. An excerpt follows.
*
Some of the witnesses, interviewed by the Tribune, said they are upset that
neither the government nor the airline is probing the incident.
Whatever the object was, it could have interfered with O’Hare’s radar and other
equipment, and even created a collision risk, they said.
The Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (the term that extraterrestrial-watchers
nowadays prefer over Unidentified Flying Object) was first seen by a United ramp
worker who was directing back a United plane at Gate C17, according to an
account the worker provided to the National UFO Reporting Center.
The sighting occurred during daylight, about 4:30 p.m., just before sunset.
All the witnesses said the object was dark gray and well defined in the overcast
skies. They said the craft, estimated by different accounts to be 6 feet to 24
feet in diameter, did not display any lights.
Some said it looked like a rotating Frisbee, while others said it did not appear
to be spinning. All agreed the object made no noise and it was at a fixed
position in the sky, just below the 1,900-foot cloud deck, until shooting off
into the clouds.
“I tend to be scientific by nature, and I don’t understand why aliens would
hover over a busy airport,” said a United mechanic who was in the cockpit of a
Boeing 777 that he was taxiing to a maintenance hangar when he observed the
metallic-looking object above Gate C17.
“But I know that what I saw and what a lot of other people saw stood out very
clearly, and it definitely was not an [Earth] aircraft,” the mechanic said.
One United employee appeared emotionally shaken by the sighting and “experienced
some religious issues” over it, one co-worker said.
A United manager said he ran outside his office in Concourse B after hearing the
report about the sighting on an internal airline radio frequency.
“I stood outside in the gate area not knowing what to think, just trying to
figure out what it was,” he said. “I knew no one would make a false call like
that. But if somebody was bouncing a weather balloon or something else over
O’Hare, we had to stop it because it was in very close proximity to our flight
operations.”
E&P Staff and The Associated Press (more on this case later in this summary)
BACKGROUND - A CLASSIC HARD CASE
“This is the sound
of underground
around the world
where you are
lives the gothic cult.
Be a dark star!”
http://www.umbraetimago.de/
FROM THE FAMOUS CONDON REPORT
The U.S. Air Force contracted with a team at the University of Colorado headed
by the late Dr. Edward Condon to conduct an independent survey of UFO cases. The following
is one of the most evidential. Condon attended the 1967 National UFO Conference. Some
12,000 people attended the convention. NUFOC is now the longest-running annual UFO
conference
in the world ( http://www.nufoc.org/ ).
A good current article on his case can be found at
http://rc.nicap.org/mcmin2.htm
Note that the images in the body of this report - in the original - are not
posted here, but one of the two is shown above, so note the illustrations here of the image in
question and a very similar good
photograph was taken in 1954 at Rouen, France. For the original on line, see
http://ncas.sawco.com/condon/text/case46.htm
OREGON 1950
Abstract:
Witness I reportedly saw a metallic-looking, disk-shaped UPO. She called her
husband, they located their camera, and he took photographs of the object before it
disappeared in the distance.
Background:
Time: 7:45 p.m. PST (1,2); 7:30 p.m. (3).
Position: Approx. 10 mi. SW of McMinnville, Ore. on the farm of the witnesses:
123 19’ 50”
W, 45 06’ 15” N (7).
Terrain: Rolling farm country, elv. 210 ft.; houses several hundred meters apart
(7).
Weather Conditions: Dull with an overcast at about 5,000 ft. (2, confirmed by
the photos).
Sighting, General Information:
The sighting occurred in the back yard of a farm about 0.2 mi. S of the “Salmon
River
Highway” (U.S. 99W (7). Witness was feeding rabbits in the back yard, S of the
house and E
of the garage when the object was first sighted (1,2,3,6), apparently toward the
NE (6).
Witness II was apparently in the house at this moment, as three of the accounts
(2,3,6)
refer to Witness I calling to him and running into the house to fetch him from
the kitchen,
although one account (1) states that they had “been out in the back yard,” and
“both... saw it at the same time.”
As far as Witness I could remember 17 yr. later (6), the rabbits gave no
indication of disturbance.
Immediately after they both saw the object, apparently as it was still in a NE
direction, moving slowly toward the W (6), they thought of their camera (1,2,3,6). Witness
II ran to the car, thinking it was there, but Witness I remembered it was in the house and
brought it (1,6). Witness II took the camera, which was already loaded. The roll of film
had been purchased during the winter and already had two or three shots on it (4).
At this time “the object was coming in toward us and seemed to be tipped up a
little bit. It was very bright—almost silvery—and there was no noise or smoke” (1).
Witness II explained that he took the first picture, re-wound his film as fast
as possible and then as the object gathered speed and turned toward the northwest, he had to
move rapidly to his right to get the second picture. Both were snapped within thirty
seconds, he estimated (1). According to another early reference: “[Witness II] elaborated,
‘There wasn’t any flame and it was moving fairly slow. Then I snapped the first picture. It
moved a little to the left and I moved to the right to take another picture.’” (3). Plates 23
and 24 show the two photographs in the sequence taken. During this interval the object was
moving quite slowly, apparently almost hovering, and it apparently shifted both its position
and orientation in a complex way, changing direction and tipping just before it
moved away, as indicated in Plate 25 (2,6). However, Witness I described it as “not undulating
or rotating, just ‘sort of gliding’” (2). The UFO accelerated slowly during or just after the
second photograph and moved away rapidly toward the west (2) . Witness I ran into the
house to call her mother-in-law, got no answer, and returned outside just in time to see the
UFO ‘dimly vanishing toward the west’ (2).
Investigation:
The witnesses described the object as “very bright - almost silvery” (1);
“brightly metallic, silver or aluminum colored, with a touch of bronze...appeared to have
a sort of superstructure... ‘like a good-sized parachute canopy without the strings, only
silvery- bright mixed with bronze’” (2); silvery on top but with more bronze on the
bottom, the
bottom being different (but, this being seventeen years later, Witness I was
unsure whether it was darker)...shiny but not as bright as a hub cap...resembling a dull,
aluminum-painted tank (which Witness I pointed out to the writer in our interview)... “awful
pretty” (6). The rather bright, aluminum-like, but not spectacular, reflecting surface appears, to
be confirmed by analysis of the photos (see below). There was no noise, visible exhaust,
flames, or smoke (1,3,6).
When the object tipped up, exposing its under side to the witnesses, they felt a
gust of wind which they thought may have come from the UFO. “’...there was a breeze as
it went overhead... which died down later’” (2). In the interview with the writer,
Witness I stressed this, remarking the wind was “about to knock you over,” though Witness
II (interviewed separately) remarked that it made only a “very little” breeze as it
was getting ready to fly off (6). As to size, speed, and distance, the witnesses were
reluctant to hazard a guess (1,2), as Witness II had no way of knowing its size (2), although one
of the references quotes Witness II as estimating a diameter of “20 or 30 ft.” (3), and Witness
I compared its appearance (though not explicitly its size) to a parachute canopy (2,6).
As to the origin of the UFO, Witness II remarked both at the time and in 1967
that he thought it was a secret U.S. craft (1). “’...you hear so much about those
things...1 didn’t believe all that talk about flying saucers before, but now I have an idea the
Army knows what they are’” (3).Witness II recalls finishing his roll of film on Mother’s Day (4) and had it
Developed locally (1). Witness II mentioned his observation and showed the pictures to a
few friends.
He did not seek publicity about the pictures, admitting that he was “’kind of
scared of it’” (2,3), and “afraid they would get in trouble with the ‘government’ and be
bothered by the publicity” (2). However, McMinnville Telephone Register reporter
Bill Powell learned of the sighting from two McMinnville bankers, Ralph and Frank Wortman,
and followed up the story (1,2). He found the negatives “on the floor under a davenport where
the Witnesses’ children had been playing with them” (2). The Telephone Register
broke the story Thursday, 8 June 1950 with a front page article containing the two pictures and
Editor’s
Note:
“...in view of the variety of opinion and reports attendant to the saucers over
the past two years, every effort has been made to check Trent’s photos for authenticity.
Expert photographers declared there has been no tampering with the negatives. [The]
original photos were developed by a local firm. After careful consideration, there appears to be
no possibility of hoax or hallucination connected with the pictures. Therefore the
Telephone Register believes them authentic...” (1).
Various McMinnville residents, including the bankers Wortman, offered to sign
Affidavits vouching unreservedly for the reputation and veracity of the witnesses (1,2,4).
On Friday and Saturday, 9 and 10 June, the Portland, Ore., and Los Angeles
Newspapers carried the story (2,3). Life magazine carried the pictures the following week
(4). The witnesses accepted an invitation to appear on a television program “We the
People,” in New York (6). Witness I remarked that they were encouraged by the people responsible
for this show to make statements they (the Witnesses) regarded as inaccurate. The
witnesses, however, did not make such statements, but told only what they saw (6).
While in New York, the witnesses were to receive their negatives from Life
magazine, but were informed that the negatives were temporarily misplaced (6). Life promised
to return them by mail to Oregon, but apparently never recovered them (6). With the
cooperation of Life the Colorado project discovered that in 1950 the negatives had been in the
possession of International News Photo Service later merged with United Press
International. The Project located the original negatives and was permitted to examine them.
As mentioned above, various reputable individuals volunteered to attest to the
witnesses’ veracity. They appear to be sincere, though not highly educated or experienced
observers. During the writer’s interview with them, they were friendly and quite
unconcerned about the sighting. Witness II was at work plowing his field and did not even get off his
tractor. From interviews throughout this district one gained the impression that these
were very industrious farm people, not given to unusual pranks.
Two inferences appear to be justified: 1) It is difficult to see any prior
motivation for a fabrication of such a story, although after the fact, the witnesses did profit
to the extent of a trip to New York; 2) it is unexpected that in this distinctly rural
atmosphere, in 1950, one would encounter a fabrication involving sophisticated trick
photography (e.g. a carefully retouched print). The witnesses also appear unaffected now by the
incident, receiving only occasional inquiries (6).
The over-all appearance of the photographs, in particular the slightly
underexposed land foreground and properly exposed sky, is consistent with the reported time 7:30
PST (sunset being roughly a few minutes after 7:15, and twilight lasting until after 8:45).
There could be a possible discrepancy in view of the fact that the UFO, the telephone pole,
possibly the garage at the left, and especially the distant house gables (left of the distant
barn) are illuminated from the right, or east. The house, in particular, appears to have a
shadow under its roof that would suggest a day lit photo, and combined with the eastward
incidence, one could argue that the photos were taken on a dull, sunlit day at, say, 10
a.m. But accepting the UFO makes scarcely less sense than arguing that the witnesses
staged a hoax at 10 a.m. and then claimed the photographs were taken at 7:30.
Densitometry of the
original negatives shows that the sky itself is brighter toward the west, as
expected. It seems possible that, half an hour after sunset, the cloud distribution could
result in a dull illumination preferentially from the NE (certainly there will be skylight
from above).
Reality of physical object. As stated previously, it is unlikely that a
Sophisticated “optical fabrication” was performed. The negatives had not been tampered with.
Further, a geometric test was performed to determine whether the object shown in
Plate 24 in approximate cross section was the same object photographed in Plate 23 at a
different angle.
The apparent inclination, i, can be determined from the ratio of the axes of the
Apparent ellipse in Plate 23.
i = b/a (2)
Measures on several copies of photo 1 (the UPI print, an enlargement thereof,
and two magazine reproductions) gave sin i = 0.368, and
i = 21°.6 ± 0°.1 (est. P.E.). (3)
Plate 26 shows enlargements from UPI print with lines of sight superimposed on
the Plate 24
“cross section” at 21°.6. The way in which these lines cut the image is in
perfect agreement
with the appearance of the object in Plate 23. Judging from the apparent
position of the pole it is likely that the object has simply tipped, without rotation, between
the two photos. The lighting is also consistent with that in the rest of the photo. Both
photographs, therefore, show real objects and that the object in Plate 23 is a view of the
same object in Plate 24, seen in different perspective.
Asymmetry of UFO. It will be noted in Plate 26 that the UFO is distinctly
asymmetric. The “pole” is off center and inclined, and there appears to be a difference in the
profiles of the right and left sides (Plate 24), the left having a more pronounced notch
defining the flange. The shading of the object also indicates a more distinct flange on the
left in Plate 24. The asymmetries are judged physical, not optical effects.
Absence of rotation. The top of the “pole,” barely visible in photo 1, is off
center to the left by the same amount as in photo 2. This would be rather improbable if the
object were rotating, and supports Witness II’s statement that it was not rotating. This is
a rather strong argument against a fabrication using a necessarily (for stability)spinning
model similar to a “frisbee,” especially in view of the fact that only 2 exposures
were made in the middle of an intact roll of film. Angular size of object. From measurements
of recent photos (6) the photos were
scaled and the UFO diameters estimated to be:
Plate 23: 1°.4
Plate 24: 1°.3.
The P.E. is probably about 0°.1, but the object subtends a smaller angle in
photo 2,consistent with the allegation that photo 2 was made as the UFO was beginning to
depart. It follows immediately that the distance-diameter relation is determined, and a
man of the locale (based on ref. 7) is shown in Fig. 1 with the azimuths, angular sizes,
and example, that the object was less than a meter in diameter and over the driveway.
Psychological reaction. I judge it reasonable that as the object allegedly
drifted to the left, in danger of being lost to sight behind the garage, that the observer
should step unconsciously to his right, as the photos show he did, although one might expect
the observer even more reasonably to step forward, to get in front of the garage.
The reason for the first response may have been that the second would put the observer close to
the house, where the object might be lost to sight if it moved back to the east, while by
moving away from the garage, one moves toward the open Yard SE of the house. In summary, the
movement of the observer is consistent with the alleged observation.
Possibility of fabrication. The above tests all appear to be consistent with the
witnesses’ testimony. The possibility of optical fabrication seems remote. A model thrown
into the air by hand appears an unlikely possibility because of the evidence for absence of
rotation. Another possibility can be considered, however. The object appears beneath a
pair of wires, as is seen in Plates 23 and 24. We may question, therefore, whether it could
have been a model suspended from one of the wires. This possibility is strengthened by the
observation that the object appears beneath roughly the same point in the two photos, in
spite of their having been taken from two positions. This can be determined from
irregularities, or “kinks,” in the wires. The wires pass between the camera positions and the
garage (left). We know from the change in orientation of the object that it moved, or was re-
oriented by hand, between exposures. The possibility that it is a model hanging beneath a point on
the wire suggests a further test: Is the change in distance of the object in Plates 23
and 24 equal to the change in distance from the wires? Measures of the disk indicate that it
is about 8% further away in Plate 24. Measures of the irregularities in the wires indicate
that they are further away from the camera in Plate 24. The amount of the latter increase from
the wires (measured by the separation of rather ill-defined “kinks”) is less certain than
the distance increase from the disk, but it is measured to be about 10%. These tests do not
rule out the possibility that the object was a small model suspended from the nearby wire by
an unresolved thread.
Given the foregoing analysis, one must choose between an asymmetric model
suspended from the overhead wire, and an extraordinary flying object (See Table 1).
Photometric analysis. Although it is often stated that a single photograph of an
Object contains no information on the distance, this is not strictly true. Atmospheric
Extinction and scattering, combined, serve to reduce contrast as distance increases, an
effect perhaps best appreciated by artists. The shadowed bottom of the UFO in Plate 23 has a
particularly pale look, suggestive of scattering between observer and object, and if such
scattering is detectable, it may be possible to make some estimate of the distance involved.
Table 1
Summary of Possible Interpretations
Interpretations Rejected Comments
Optical fabrications
Double exposure X UFO darker than sky background
Retouch; drawn image X Negatives unretouched
Multiple copies, recopying (X) Overly sophisticated
Physical fabrications
“Frisbee”-type model in flight X No rotation
Model suspended from wire Under same part of wire in each photo
Extraordinary Flying Object Photometry suggests large distance
The luminance or apparent surface brightness at distance r of an object of
Intrinsic luminance Bo (r = 0) is B = Bsky (1 - e-Beta · r) + Bo e-Beta · r (4)
where Beta is the scattering coefficient. The first term represents scattered
light; the second, extinction. Since all measures must be based on the witnesses’ two
photographs, we will determine Beta for the given day from the photographs themselves.
Normalizing all brightnesses (measured from the film and assuming that the images measured fall
on the linear portion of the gamma curve) to that of the sky near the horizon, i.e. on
a line within a few thousand feet of the ground, where the UFO is constrained to be by
the reported cloud height and probably nearness to the camera, we have B = 1 + e-Beta · r (Bo
* 1)
(5) Notice that if an object is sufficiently far away, its brightness equals the
sky brightness (in physical terms, the optical depth T >> 1).
Given the brightness of an object at zero distance, Bo, and the observed
brightness B, one may solve for the distance r. The first necessary step is to determine the
scattering coefficient Beta. The original negatives were subjected to densitometric
analysis, and Table 2 lists observed values of B. “Hill 2” lies at a distance of about 2.2 km (7).
The photometry indicates that B = .685 for the distant hill, but the foreground
foliage gives Bo = .403. This gives = 0.289 km-1, or optical depth T = 1 at r = 3.5 km,
(6) which appears consistent with the appearance of the photos.
At this point the theory was checked against objects of known distance. For
example, the roof of the distant barn (“B” in Fig. 1 ) has B = .506. If one assumes that its
intrinsic brightness equals that of the foreground garage, then Bo = .495, so that r =
0.073 km.
Table 2
Values of B for Objects Photographed*
Based on densitometry of original negatives; aperture 75µ x 75µ
Object Plate 23 Plate 24
UFO “Pole” 1.07
Illuminated right side 1.29 1.23
Illuminated left side (1.35) 1.05
Shaded bottom .675
Garage roof .489 .501
Shadows under eaves .396 .426
Metallic tank:
Illuminated .86 .91
Shaded bottom (.48) (.40)
Foreground underbrush .417 .389
Barn (roof) .511 .501
Hill
1 .63 .59
2 .71 .66
House
Illuminated wall (.77) (.77)
Shadow (.44) (.52)
Sky
Upper right 1.29 1.26
Upper left 1.51 1.62
Horizon 1.00 1.00
Unexposed edge of film .32 .34
Measures in parentheses have lower weight
* B values are normalized to horizon sky brightness
The true r is about 0.32 km, and our error is a factor 4. One can resolve the
discrepancy by assuming the barn roof was slightly (7%) darker than the garage roof.
Again, one can check the theory on the distant “Hill 1.” B = .610 and Bo = .403
as measured in the foreground foliage. This gives r = 1.5 km. The true r is in the range 1.3
to 1.9 km, depending on the part of the hill observed, and the error is negligible.
A third check, more comparable to the UFO problem, is the distant house (“H” in
Fig. 1 ).
Unfortunately the densitometer did not clearly resolve the illuminated white
facade from the intervening branches; however, supplementary measures with enlargements indicate
that the
facade brightness should be only slightly more than 1.00, e.g. B = 1.02, and Bo
= 1.04, which means that the apparent brightness nearly equals sky brightness and hence
is very insensitive to distance and gives no good solution. There are shadows visible on
the house on the white surface under the eaves. Measures indicate B = .48. Bo for the
shadows on this white surface, illuminated by the ambient illumination, should be intrinsically
measurably brighter than the shadows under the dark wooden garage eaves and under the tank
beside the garage (Bo = .41), but not as much brighter as the white illuminated surface is
brighter than the darker wood. (If there were no ambient illumination, all shadows would
be intrinsically black; Bo = 0). An estimated value is Bo = .43. This gives a
distance of r = 0.32 km, only 14% less than the measured distance of 0.37 km. Naive use of Bo =
0.41, known to he too low, would have given r = 0.44 km, 19% too great.
It is concluded that by careful consideration of the parameters involved in the
case of recognizable objects in the photographs, distances can be measured within a
factor-four error. This justifies the assumption that we are on the linear part of the gamma
curve.
Figure 1: Sighting Locale
If such a good measure could be made for the UFO, we could distinguish between a
Distant extraordinary object and a hypothetical small, close model.
At this point we must be explicit about the geometry of the situation. We
represent the environment as in Fig. 2 . We assume that the UFO is within a homogeneous
scattering layer with T = 1 at 3.5 km. If the UFO were far away and at an altitude greater than
the characteristic dimension of the layer (C in Fig. 2), it would be large and
extraordinary in any case. If it is relatively close, r = 1 km, the assumptions are justified.
Our objective is to distinguish between cases A and B in Fig. 2 . The sky brightness, to which
all the brightness values are normalized, must be the sky brightness at the horizon,
since this is the value characteristic of long path length through the scattering layer.
For the solution of the UFO distance, we have two independent solutions from two independent
observations: the illuminated and shadowed surfaces of the UFO. As was remarked
above, it is the shadowed surface in particular that looks pale and hence suggests large
distance. Immediately from Table 2 we see that B = 1.21 describes the part of the UFO,
while the illuminated part of the nearby dull aluminum-painted tank Bo = .885. Since, as
the UFO recedes, B must approach 1.00. We thus know that 1.21 is the minimum intrinsic
brightness of the UFO surface, i.e. Bo>1.21. Thus the UFO in any interpretation is known to
have a brighter surface than the foreground tank. Thus, the photometry at once confirms
the witnesses’ report that the UFO was shiny, like a fresh, aluminum-painted
surface, but not a spectacular surface.
The question is, how bright is the surface intrinsically, and what surface
properties would be consistent with both the observed illuminated and shadowed side? Fig. 3 shows
two families of solutions, one for the illuminated top surface and one for the
shaded bottomside. Solutions for the latter have
Figure 2: Sighting Geometry
Click on thumbnail to see full-size image.
Figure 3: Brightness/Diameter/Distance Plot
an uncertainty introduced by the difficulty of measuring the true shadow
intensity or the tank. The distance is given as a function of the assumed increase in brightness
over the value for the illuminated or shaded side of the aluminum-painted tank,
respectively.
Fig. 3 graphically illustrates the problem. For example, if the object is a
model suspended from the wire only a few meters away, its surface is some 37% brighter than that
of the tank, and the shaded side is probably more than 40% brighter than the shadow on
the tank. But this is nearly impossible to maintain in the face of the photometry.
Although the distant house’s surface is roughly twice as bright as the tank’s surface, its
shadows can be only a few percent brighter, intrinsically, than those on the tank. This is
basically the problem that was suggested by initial inspection of the photos: the shadowed
side of the UFO appears to be so bright that it suggests significant scattering between it and
the observer. The upshot is that if the top and bottom surfaces of the UFO are made out of
essentially the same material, i.e. with the same albedo, the photometry indicates that the UFO
is distant, at roughly r = 1.3 ± 0.4 km (est. P. E.). The witnesses referred to a slightly
different hue of the bottom side of the UFO: they said it was more bronze than the silvery top
side. We have assumed this change in tint had negligible effect on the photometry,
although the implication is that the bottom has slightly lower albedo. If so the UFO would be
still more distant.
There is one last possibility for fabrication which has not been ruled out.
Suppose the object is a small model with a pale grey top and a bright white bottom (e.g. an
aluminum pie pan sealed on the bottom with white paper). Could this account for the apparent
lightness of the bottom, shaded side of the UFO? It is difficult to defend this idea in the
face of the photometry. Our analysis of the house
indicated that its shaded white surface had an intrinsic brightness of 0.43,
which is very close to the value measured for the shaded part of the aluminum-painted tank.
Yet hypothetical fabrication requires a surface on the shaded bottom of the model
that is of intrinsic shaded brightness 0.68, considerably brighter than the shaded part of
the white house. In other words, the photometry appears to indicate that a very white
surface on the bottom of a small model would be required to match the appearance of the
photographs. To the extent that the photometric analysis is reliable, (and the measurements
appear to be consistent), the photographs indicate an object with a bright shiny surface at
considerable distance and on the order of tens of meters in diameter. While it would be
exaggerating to say that we have positively ruled out a fabrication, it appears significant that
the simplest, most direct interpretation of the photographs confirms precisely what
the witnesses said they saw. Yet, the fact that the object appears beneath the same
part of the overhead wire in both photos can be used as an argument favoring a suspended
model.
Conclusion:
This is one of the few UFO reports in which all factors investigated, geometric,
psychological, and physical appear to be consistent with the assertion that an
extraordinary flying object, silvery, metallic, disk-shaped, tens of meters in diameter, and
evidently artificial, flew within sight of two witnesses. It cannot be said that the
evidence positively rules out a fabrication, although there are some physical factors
such as the accuracy of certain photometric measures of the original negatives which argue
against a fabrication.
DETAILS FROM http://www.nuforc.org/:
MORE ON THE CURRENT CASE IN THE NEWS 2007
SIGHTING OF DISC-SHAPED OBJECT OVER O’HARE AIRPORT, CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, AT 16:30
HRS. (CENTRAL) ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 07, 2006
DECEMBER 07, 2006 UPDATE: NUFORC has received a second report about this
incident from a senior aircraft mechanic, who was taxiing a Boeing 777 at the
time of the sighting, and who witnessed the object.
His report is here:”Occurred : 11/7/2006 16:30 (Entered as : 110706 16:30)
Reported: 11/21/2006 4:08:16 PM 16:08
Posted: 12/7/2006
Location: Chicago O’Hare Airport, IL
Shape: Circle
Duration:20 min
((NUFORC Note: This individual was interviewed, at length, by one of the
investigators involved in the follow-up investigation. The investigators were
highly impressed with the witness’s credentials, and with the accurate
description of the event. We deem this witness to be extremely highly credible.
We express our sincere gratitude to this witness for his having shared the
information about his sighting with NUFORC, and with his fellow American
Citizens. PD))
Chicago O’Hare UFO Report
Ok I have been hesitant about talking about this, but after hearing the report
on Coast to Coast AM with Mr. Norey I can not be silent. I work for a major
airline at O’Hare, I am a taxi mechanic. I have the job responsibility of moving
aircraft under there own power from gate to gate or the hangar complex for
maintenance. We also accomplish the engine run-up testing needed. So I hope that
does something for establishing a little of credibility for my report. I am
still in absolute wonder and amazement at what I saw that afternoon.
Around 1630 a pilot made a comment on the radio about a circle or disc shaped
object hovering over gate C-17 at the C concourse in Chicago. At first we
laughed to each other and then the same pilot said again on the radio that is
was about 700feet agl (above ground level). The day was overcast with the
ceiling being reported at 1600 feet if I remember correctly. I was taxing a
Boeing 777 from the Intl Terminal to the Company Hanger on the North side of the
Airport. As we passed the C Terminal on the Alpha taxiway we observed a dark
gray hazy round object hovering over O’Hare Intl Airport. Is was definitely over
the C Terminal. It was holding very steady and appeared to be trying to stay
close to the cloud cover. The radio irrupted with chatter about the object and
the ATC controller that was handling ground traffic made a few smart comments
about the alleged UFO sighting above the C terminal.
We had to continue moving the aircraft to the hangar. After parking I noticed
the craft of no longer there but there was an almost perfect circle in the cloud
layer were the craft had been. The hole disappeared a few minutes later.
For the rest of the night there were jokes made on the radio about the sighting.”
((NUFORC Note: This individual was interviewed, at length, by one of the
investigators involved in the follow-up investigation. The investigators were
highly impressed with the witness’s credentials, and with his description of
what he saw. We deem this witness to be highly credible. PD))
ORIGINAL REPORT: The National UFO Reporting Center has received the following
information from a single source (see below), who, for the time being, wishes to
remain anonymous, and who prefers not to reveal for what entity he works. We
have received documentation about the alleged sighting, which satisfies us as to
the veracity of the report, and as to the credentials of the party reporting the
incident.
We have delayed release of this case, principally because an investigation was
begun almost immediately after our receipt of the initial report, and because we
were hoping to obtain addition documentation about the sighting, before it could
be concealed, or destroyed.
At approximately 16:30 p.m. (Central) on Tuesday, November 07, 2006, Federal
authorities at O’Hare Airport received a report that approximately a dozen
witnesses were observing a small, round disc-shaped object, metallic in
appearance, which hovered over Gate C17 at that airport.
The object was first spotted by an employee, working on the ramp, who was
engaged in “pushing back” Flight 446, departing Chicago for Charlotte, NC.
The employee reported to his supervisors that the object appeared to be almost
directly above his location at Gate C17, it appeared to be perfectly round, and
that its size was approximately equal to a U. S. quarter, held at arm’s length.
The object had a metallic appearance, according to the first witness, and it
appeared to him to be spinning.
The first witness apprised the flight crew of Flight 446 of the existence of the
object above their aircraft, and we believe both the pilot and copilot were
witness to the bizarre object, as well. The witness also contacted his
supervisors, who also witnessed the object, which was visible for approximately
2 minutes.
At the end of that time, the object was seen to suddenly accelerate straight up
at a very rapid pace, and it “shot” through the solid overcast, which was at
1,900 feet at the time. The witness added that the object appeared to leave a
“hole” in the clouds, where it had streaked upwards through the overcast.
Both the Federal Aviation Administration and Transportation Security
Administration were apprised of the event at the time it was occurring, and FAA
personnel in one of the towers at O’Hare may have witnessed the object, probably
with binoculars. The FAA apparently reported that the object was not visible on
radar, although that fact has not been confirmed at the time of this writing.
We hope to be able to release more information about the incident at some time
in the near future. In the meantime, we would like to invite anyone who may have
been personal witness to the event to submit a report of their sighting, using
our Online Report Form. We would be most grateful if you would indicate in your
report where you were located, at the time of the sighting, and what the object
looked like, from your vantage point.
Here is another, similar, report for a sighting at Gatwick Airport, near London,
on April 12, 2006:
Occurred : 4/12/2006 23:45 (Entered as : 04/12/2006 23:45)
Reported: 12/4/2006 4:04:03 PM 16:04
Posted: 12/7/2006
Location: East Preston (UK/England),
Shape: Light
Duration:2 MINUTES
“Erratic light seen over Gatwick Airpot 4/12/2006
“Object was over Gatwick airport direction. it changed direction suddenly a few
times and descended and climbed incredibly quickly.
“It most definitly was not an aeroplane. only a military plane could manouvre
anything like as fast as this but I can discount that because 1/ the time being
close to midnight 2/ coupled with a low altitude estimate;- below 2000 feet 3/
no sound.
“I am amateur astronomer and can without doubt discount all astronomical
illusions i.e. Moon, Venus, Mars, meteor etc.”
