UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2007 > Nov > Nov 23

Was It Weather Anomaly Or UFO?

From: Don Ledger <dledger.nul>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2007 14:54:30 -0400
Archived: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:38:39 -0500
Subject: Was It Weather Anomaly Or UFO?


>From: Gerald O'Connell <gac.nul>
>To: ufoupdates.nul
>Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 13:22:54 +0000
>Subject: Re: Was It Weather Anomaly Or UFO?


>>Source: The Herald Bulletin - Anderson, Indiana, USA

>>http://www.heraldbulletin.com/letters/local_story_323234926.html

>>November 19, 2007

>>Letters

>>Was It Weather Anomaly, Or UFO?

>>Isn't it ironic how we trust our lives with highly respected
>>people, and then we're told not to believe their words at the
>>same time?

>>Case in point, on Nov. 7, 2006, a UFO was observed at O'hare
>>International Airport. Twelve employees from United Airlines to
>>include two pilots, a U.A. manager, a mechanic, and others
>>witnessed a saucer-shaped object hovering 1,900 feet above gate
>>C-17 around 4:30 p.m. Reports were made from the employees for
>>safety concerns. They were later asked to describe and draw what
>>they witnessed. They were instructed to never speak of it again
>>by the FAA. The Chicago Tribune caught wind of the story and
>>asked United what happened. They denied everything... until the
>>Freedom of Information Act was requested. They told the Tribune
>>that something happened and it was a "weather anomaly".

>All of which, if accurate, raises a fascinating issue. The FAA
>is involved in suppression of information here, and we are left
>to draw the inference that it would rather be seen to be
>suppressing information about a 'weather anomaly' than it would
>information about a UFO.

>I cannot think of a single reason, let alone a good reason, for
>suppressing information about a weather anomaly. This goes
>double for an official body with a duty of care in relation to
>air passenger safety. Or was it United, or O'Hare who issued the
>'weather anomaly ' explanation? - whichever way, the Duty of
>Care issue still stands. And yet it seems preferable somehow,
>at some level of bureaucracy, for the misdeed with the greater
>apparent guilt attached to it to be the one exposed.

>Does this reflect policy or an unhappy accident? (Or maybe even
>an uncontrolled combination of the two, with different
>organisations' various agendas, paranoias and errors coming to
>light to contradictory effect?)


Hi Gerald,

With Errol's forbearance here is what I posted on this matter
back on January 22, 2007 on UFO UpDates:

---

Initially when the O'Hare UFO sighting occurred, the FAA
[Federal Aviation Authority] in the United States declared it a
weather phenomenon. Not only was this an ill thought out and
silly explanation with no regard to the actual times involved
but probably issued by the wrong agency.

The FAA has no expertise in the area of anomalous aerial objects
reported by not only the civilian population but by military
pilots, general aviation and commercial aviation which involves
airliners and airfreighters. The real expertise where the
aviation portion of the FAA is concerned is with the pilots who
actually fly the airplanes not with the civil servants and
ground bound employees of the FAA.

Why is it we are always acquiescing to an uninformed authority
when it comes to explaining these objects. There are various
departments in the FAA that are concerned with aviation
regulations and the whole system of air traffic control. The
section of the FAA dealing with media relations is peopled by
ex-media people. Other positions in the FAA are populated with
supervisors and managers who don't know an aileron from an
empennage. Some of these persons are parachuted into these jobs
by political representatives who have to pay off a favor to the
individuals and reward them with a federal job with the perks
and pensions that apply thereto.

The same thing applies in Canada at Transport Canada and other
federal agencies. Some employees are aviation savvy and are
experts in their fields but usually at the technical level where
accidents and air traffic control are concerned. They might have
the expertise but do not have the ear of the public. Often
policy making at the top levels is concerned with keeping the
system of air travel running and making money. Any perceived
threat to that trend such as a UFO report at a federally
operated and controlled airport is quickly dealt with by the
media representatives of the top levels of management not any
expert at the FAA. They have no expert in this area.

The response to a UFO report such as that of O'Hare on
Nov.7,2006 is knee jerk in nature and not an informed one. In
this regard Jon and other reporters should note that in their
articles. Even the weather response had no credibility as
informed scientific fact and that too should be noted.

It should have been asked where this expertise came from...
certainly the FAA does not process it. This is the pervue of the
US Weather Service. They have the scientists who are
knowledgeable about weather phenomena, not the FAA.

The history should be checked for this phenomenon of the UFO and
the study by those informed in this area by the media. The media
falls down and frankly dismal in its approach to these reports;
often the questions they ask and their attitude toward it are
embarrassingly simpleminded. In Jon's case, he at least treated
it as a puzzling event - and I was one who sent him one of those
hundreds of e-mails he received - praising him for doing so. He
took the trouble to issue and FOIA request and stirred up a
hornets nest as a result. This attention to detail is not always
the case. The databases regarding pilot reports of UFOs/UAP
number in the thousands some of which include highly dangerous
near misses and in some cases collisions with these things never
mind the on-record incidents of pilots reporting these objects
harassing them and then never being seen again with ATC losing
contact with them while they on the radio reporting the episode.
This is a fact not fiction. This can be a dangerous phenomenon
often not reported by pilots because they fear just the kind of
nonsense offered up by the FAA for the O'Hare incident.

Often they are made to look the fool. I find it curious and very
disturbing that United Airlines have attempted to subvert
freedom of speech by ordering their employees not to speak of
this incident. A few thoughts in a limited forum.

---

Best,

Don Ledger

Pilot, author Swissair Down The Crash Of Swissair Flight 111
NARCAP Representative for Canada



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

See:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/subscribers/


[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com