Explaining the O'Hare Airport UFO (day events)

  • #26
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
One of the groups contacted is headed by Dr. Haines, who focuses on aviation related UFO reports and incidents. He has also addressed the issue of aviation safety as a function of UFO events.

A brief excerpt from their response.

Included on our staff are the former Chief of the Aviation Safety Program Office at NASA Ames Research Center and now the Deputy Director of Human Factors at NASA as well as a number of other very experienced aviation and aeronautical sciences experts and this issue of jet blasts creating a visible phenomena beyond the typical heat distortions has never been raised...
.

I have no control over what happens from here, but the most interested parties are taking a look. There is another NASA engineer [through another source] who is considering your idea as well.

Note also that the hole-punch phenomenon can be aircraft related, but it is thought to result from the "fall-out" of ice crystals - from the moisture in the jet exhaust - rather than due to increased temperature.

If it turns out to be feasible, your idea could explain an entire class of UFO reports. But, again, it may not work out. We will just have to wait and see if anything comes of it.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
41
0
[QUOTE=If it turns out to be feasible, your idea could explain an entire class of UFO reports. But, again, it may not work out. We will just have to wait and see if anything comes of it.[/QUOTE]
Am very much impressed by Herdeveles scientific tackling of these "UFOs" sightings. Most of us who can keep our heads when others less informed holler have known all along that talks of UFOs are nothing but hot air, quite literally. What we have been lacking is such minds that can point us to the right direction to help educate the scientifically challenged community. Am not suprised we don't sight UAPs here in Africa. Few industries politically spread far apart and real airplanes sighting is something to write home about.
 
  • #28
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
So your logic is that if one report or one class of reports can be explained, which has certainly not been shown to be true in this case, they all can be explained?

In effect, you are grasping for any explanation and accepting it without any solid evidence.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
41
0
In effect, you are grasping for any explanation and accepting it without any solid evidence.[/QUOTE]

No Sir. Not any explanation. Somebody has to take sides in this matter. Following many logical explanations (remember the Egyptian pyramid UFO's small talk?), I choose to believe all "UFOs" arial phenomenons will be explained in time. Then mentions of such 'objects' will be treated in the same vain as crackpots' perpetual motion machines.
I hope I don't sound as fanatical as some ufologist's disciples.
 
  • #30
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
In effect, you are grasping for any explanation and accepting it without any solid evidence.

No Sir. Not any explanation. Somebody has to take sides in this matter.
What sides are you talking about?

Following many logical explanations (remember the Egyptian pyramid UFO's small talk?), I choose to believe all "UFOs" arial phenomenons will be explained in time.
I assume that you mean that they will all be explained as natural phenomena, misperceptions, etc., and that's fine, but it proves nothing. It is a statement of faith.

Then mentions of such 'objects' will be treated in the same vain as crackpots' perpetual motion machines.
Again, you may be right, but for now it is a statement of faith. What's more, it is clear that you are driven by an agenda rather than curiosity. What you did is to accept one possible explanation that is nothing more than speculation at this point. We don't even know if the effects suggested are possible.

Part of the reason that the UFO fanatics are so fanatical is that debunkers and skeptics will often accept virtually any explanation whether it makes sense of not.

I've been following this stuff for twenty years and I still have no idea what to think. And I don't understand why everyone else seems to be so impatient - compelled to "decide" [take sides]. There is nothing wrong with "I don't know" as an answer.

Also, unlike perpetual motion machines, UFOs are an observed phenomenon.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
41
0
I expressed fear in my earlier post that I may come out as fanatical as my bretheren in the other camp (of UFOs believers) and am afraid your (Ivan's) assessment of myself may be spot on. Since you also mention that everyone else seems to be impatient the more I pray to see more scientist come up with rational explanation. I guess I'll have to read more and write less. Kudos to you for playing the Devil's advocate.
 
  • #32
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
I expressed fear in my earlier post that I may come out as fanatical as my bretheren in the other camp (of UFOs believers) and am afraid your (Ivan's) assessment of myself may be spot on. Since you also mention that everyone else seems to be impatient the more I pray to see more scientist come up with rational explanation. I guess I'll have to read more and write less. Kudos to you for playing the Devil's advocate.
I think you may be the first person to ever make a post like this in S&D wrt the subject of UFOS. :smile:

Most serious people who have an interest in the subject recognize not only the fallibility of witnesses, but also that 90-95% of all "sightings" can be [easily] explained in conventional terms. But when all is said and done, there is a residue of intriguing reports that come with compelling evidence the form of multiple otherwise credible witnesses, and or RADAR data, and or photographic/video evidence, and sometimes even trace physical evidence. The most intriguing reports often come from the military - the government archives at places like the NSA, CIA, DoD etc. A good amount of the best information can be found in the UFO Napster. Note however that the NSA just readdressed their archives - third time now in five years :grumpy:- so many NSA links won't work. I will be updating these links as time allows. However, in the mean time you can search the NSA UFO database for the relevant reports.

Since I have never seen an "alien spacecraft" [at least not that I know of :biggrin:], I don't "believe" that ET has been here, but I do understand why so many people do. My goal is to provide for the presentation of the most credible evidence for whatever it is that people see. Beyond that I have no agenda other than to provide the proper context for these reports. As I said, I started on this twenty years ago - at one time or another I have read probably every one of the thousands of related government documents, as well as at least a few thousand more public reports - and I'm still mystified by the subject.
 
Last edited:
  • #33
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
heldervelez, last night the show UFO Hunters addressed the O'Hare event, so I made a point of watching with your idea in mind. The biggest problem seems to be the duration of the event - the claim is that the "disk" was observed for fifteen minutes. But the confidence in this number is low since we don't even have direct testimony except through the Chicago Tribune reporter. And wouldn't you know it: I had to leave the room for a short time. When I returned they were talking about the energy required to punch a hole in the clouds...I think. What's more, Ted Roe, with NARCAP - the Haines group, one of those contacted about your idea - was on the show. So I think they were addressing your line of reasoning but I couldn't be sure as I missed most of that segment. :grumpy: The show is not yet available online but it will be. It is called Aliens at the Airport and can soon be viewed here:
http://www.history.com/video.do?name=UFO_Hunters [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #34
dlgoff
Science Advisor
Gold Member
3,830
1,769
I watched it and beleive they said it would take about 100MWs to create this kind of hole through that thick of cloud cover. And the aircraft (don't remember what type) would only provide about 1MWs.
 
  • #35
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Cool. Two months to go from the first post on PF, to the TV?

They were talking about heldervelez's idea? Was the discussion framed the same as discussed here? That is what I wasn't sure about.
 
  • #36
252
0
I saw the announcement and it is about 'aliens' . I'm pretty sure that they will not address within this perspective.
 
  • #37
252
0
Today morning a plane crashed at Amsterdam airport.
I saw fog -> No wind
No dead people -> final landing phase

I bet :
lack of oxigen in the engines
due the coincident landing path with a previous airplane not sufficiently separated in time.

Can someone check the local weather conditions, and air traffic on that lane?

May be we could save lives in the future.
 
  • #38
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
I saw the announcement and it is about 'aliens' . I'm pretty sure that they will not address within this perspective.
I think the point was that it sounds like they did. They do hype things a lot, but they also have a scientist from MIT on the team.
 
  • #39
I personally think you are going to have a couple problems explaining a few things.

*The metallic color.
*A solid shape that rotates.
*That it is stationary over the airport at set distance then suddenly accelerates at a drastic value.
*The power necessary to to deflect the cloud cover sounds like it is out of bounds for most conventional phenomena explanations though I could be wrong.

If all these observations are correct any explanation should take into account all observations simultaneously.
 
Last edited:
  • #40
107
0
Just a shot in the dark. But, what if a puff of smoke had been released from an engine, for some reason. And, due to the constant presence of hot air, from the jet engine, the smoke, actually had been trapped beneath, or within this flow of hot air, until the engine shut down which then led to the sudden release of this puff of smoke, causing it to rise approximately as fast or a little slower than the hot air column from the engine.

If this were possible, it would explain the optical properties, as well as the hovering.
 
  • #41
107
0
I found this article shedding some light on a possible effect which may be worth looking. Although I'm not sure it is relevant to this situation.

In that study Andy Ackerman, of NASA’s Ames Research Center, and co-authors used a computer model to demonstrate that energy-absorbing aerosols can have a semi-direct affect on cumulus clouds over the ocean. At the time he wrote his paper, Ackerman was unaware of Hansen’s paper and so he wasn’t familiar with Hansen’s term “semi-direct effect.” Instead, Ackerman described it as the “cloud-burning effect of soot.” But both groups of scientists described the basic underlying physics of the process in pretty much the same way: as the top of the boundary layer becomes filled with dark-colored particles (like soot), the aerosols absorb sunlight and warm the temperature of the air relative to the temperature of the surface. According to Ackerman, this heating at the top of the boundary layer burns away clouds in two ways: (1) by accelerating the process of evaporation of existing clouds, and (2) by suppressing the upward flow of moisture from the surface needed to form new clouds.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/SmokeClouds/smoke_clouds2.php
 
  • #42
Well that is interesting it might burn back the clouds but there is still the issue of the metallic reflection, and a solid object rotating, and the sudden accelerations. Hot air once released should reach terminal velocity quite quickly at a relatively low speed.
 
  • #43
180
1
Hot air once released should reach terminal velocity quite quickly at a relatively low speed.
What does this mean? What's "terminal velocity" for "hot air?" What do you mean by "relatively low speed?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #44
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
What does this mean? What's "terminal velocity" for "hot air?" What do you mean by "relatively low speed?"
I think he meant the maximum velocity at which the hot air will rise.
 
Last edited:
  • #45
107
0
Maybe a combination of wind and hot air released from the jet engine? If the wind were blowing at maybe a 45 degree angle to the air stream released by the engine, and the smoke had been carried by the wind into a sweet spot of interaction between the two, it could form some kind of vortex, or swirl of smoke, held in place by both the wind and the hot air from the jet engine, until the jet engine stops releasing it?
 

Related Threads on Explaining the O'Hare Airport UFO (day events)

  • Last Post
2
Replies
25
Views
12K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
47
Views
33K
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
8
Replies
197
Views
19K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
66
Views
90K
  • Last Post
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • Last Post
9
Replies
222
Views
16K
Top