The Standard (Macclenny, FL)
Truth
According
to Hoyle
By Hoyle Dempsey
Usually when we hear about UFO sightings the eye witnesses are good old boys in the swamps of Mississippi or Louisiana. These events usually occur at least three hours past “beer thirty!” But when a flying saucer is seen by at least a dozen employees of United Airlines in broad daylight at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, now that’s a different story.
What the “Fly the Friendly Skies” workers all saw was a saucer shape air craft on November 7, hovering motionless above Concourse C of the United Terminal. Then without making a sound, it started soaring upwards through the overcast Windy City skies. Witnesses say it flew through so fast, that it left an eerie circular hole in the clouds, allowing blue sky to peak through the cloudy Heavens!
FAA spokesperson Elizabeth Isham Cory said it was caused by a “weather phenomenon!” You know what Liz, lightning, hurricanes, tornadoes, snow storms and floods are weather phenomenons. Which one of them put a big round hole in the clouds?
Hoyle Dempsey said:
FAA spokesperson Elizabeth Isham Cory said it was caused by a “weather phenomenon!” You know what Liz, lightning, hurricanes, tornadoes, snow storms and floods are weather
phenomenonsphenomena. Which one of them put a big round hole in the clouds?None of the the “phenomenons” Dempsey named put a big round hole in the clouds. However, there is a weather phenomenon that produces what are called either “fallstreak holes” or “hole punch clouds.” Galleries with impressive photos of this phenomenon maybe be found at the Australian “Project
Atmosphere” website, and the
Cloud Appreciation Society site.
Dempsey’s protestations are a common example of “commonsense,” that is actually lacking in sense. Here’s a guy who probably spends 99% of his time indoors, and who neverprobably never took a class in meteorology, thumbing his nose at someone who suggested some form of weather “phenomenons.” I have become to a certain degree enured to this, in this “ufo biz,” but I still notice it every time it flies by me.
In all honesty, the “fallstreak hole” phenomenon doesn’t sound like that likely an explanation to me, as it appears to occur primarily in very high clouds, e.g, cirrus forms, altostratus, etc., and the ceiling over Chicago on Nov. 7th was reported to be less than 2000 feet, if I recall correctly. Nevertheless, from someone who took formal courses in meteorology, I know for a fact that all kinds of weird waveforms get set up in the structure of clouds under the influence of winds aloft, and can create some extraordinary looking structures (which is why there’s a Cloud Appreciation Society). This is not to mention other weather related phenomena: parhelia, paraselenae, haloes, specter of the brocken, sun pillars, moon pillars, crepuscular rays, lenticular clouds, noctilucent clouds, etc.
It is for this reason that I view “chemtrails” with a jaundiced eye. Also the so-called “donut on a rope” contrails, supposedly left behind by hypersonic, “Aurora” type black aircraft, alleged to be an artifact of a pulsed jet motor. In fact, I have on more than one occassion observed a B-52 or KC-135 fly over at a very high altitude, and watched the contrail transform into a “donut on a rope” before my very eyes (and I have resolved to get a photo of this next time it happens, to share at AAMB). Which is not to say each and every donut on a rope contrail “cannot” be from a hypersonic pulsed jet – only that such a contrail, by itself, is not proof of one.
Something I’ve said many times before: it’s a big world, filled with many strange and awe-inspiring things. It’s even a bigger universe. On one hand, some individuals cite this rationale as a reasonare visiting us; I use it only in the sense that we have learned what we know about the universe through a certain, well-defined process. We know what we know, and the rest we don’t know – so stop surmising about that which we do not really know, and then treating that surmise as a likelihood, or worse yet, a fact.
The way to really demonstrate that aliens are visiting this planet is with an alien, or a piece of one, or an alien spacecraft, or a piece of one. Despite Peter Davenport’s allegations that a “coverup may be forming” (strange language he uses there, the “forming,”), and his assertions about the credibility of the O’Hare witnesses (one of the witnesses posted a written report at Davenport’s with 339 words and no less than 15 spelling errors, and 15 more errors of grammar or syntax – I’m not sure what that says about the credibility of an aircraft mechanic, if anything), none of this conclusively proves that it was an alien spacecraft. To assert that it was, or probably was, an ET craft is to use the old logical fallacy, “well, we can’t explain it any other way, therefore it must have been aliens.”
Only one thing about the Chicago sightings is certain: 12 people attest to having seen something they didn’t understand and can’t explain.
Well, actually two things are certain. The second is that everyone is going apeshit about it.
Best,
RDB
I said in my previous comment:
Which is not to say each and every donut on a rope contrail “cannot†be from a hypersonic pulsed jet – only that such a contrail, by itself, is not proof of one.
Now that I think about it, this a good analogy for the “ufos are alien spacecraft” position. Those who claim that the statements of others, or a depression in the ground, or burnt leaves, or whatever, are evidence of alien spacecraft, are taking something that exists after the fact, as evidence of the thing itself.
In some cases, this kind of reasoning will serve: say you’re walking along the street, and you see a big double blob of ice cream in the middle of the sidewalk, melting. Explicitly, the reasoning here would go: “somebody was walking along with an ice cream cone, and the ice cream took a dive.” I suppose one could suppose that the ice cream was really in a cup, but this changes little.
Numerous other examples could be thought of: tire tracks in mud are evidence than an automobile or automobiles passed this way. Chalk on a chalkboard eraser proves it has been used at least once. A pile of dogshit in your yard means you left the front gate open. And so on…
In each of these cases, we are dealing with known, prosaic phenomena. So let’s line these up with the whole UFO thing–
Ice cream on sidewalk = person with ice cream cone passed by and lost ice cream
Tire tread in mud = automobile passed this way.
Chalk on eraser = used eraser
Dogshit in yard = gate left open
Dramatic claim made by credible individual = extraterrestrial spacecraft was here
Claim made by 12 credible individuals = extraterrestrial spacecraft was here
Depression in ground + claim made by individual(s) = extraterrestrial spacecraft was here
I realize I’m preaching to the choir here, Emperor; this is for anyone else’s (if any) benefit.
Anyway – what’s different about the three last items of the above list? What’s missing?
I’m not contesting in the slightest that people see things they can’t explain. I’m just contesting whether the fact that people see things they can’t explain is a proof that is indisputable and factual with respect to several billion other people on this planet.
“UFO sightings” are often “real.” Extraterrestrial spacecraft are a provisional explanation, an hypothesis, not a fact.
Stan Friedman likes to use the term “clear and convincing proof” when talking about UFOs as evidence of ET visitation. Very nicely weasel-worded – I’m sure he did some hard thinking about what language to use to support his sophistry, when coming up with that, because, depending on how credulous an individual is, damned near anything can be “clear and convincing” to some people. To some people, a room in an old house suddenly turning cold is “clear and convincing” evidence of ghosts. To other people, thinking of someone, and then running into them is “clear and convincing evidence” of extrasensory perception.
Well, ’nuff said.
Best,
RDB
Best,
RDB
I realize I’m preaching to the choir here, Emperor; this is for anyone else’s (if any) benefit.
Hey, preach away. I get a fair amount of traffic through the Odd Empire–much more than I’d expect for a site like this. People seldom comment and that’s always puzzled me a bit (but that’s a topic for some future column.)
“Stan Friedman likes to use the term “clear and convincing proof†when talking about UFOs as evidence of ET visitation. Very nicely weasel-worded – I’m sure he did some hard thinking about what language to use to support his sophistry, when coming up with that, because, depending on how credulous an individual is, damned near anything can be “clear and convincing†to some people. To some people, a room in an old house suddenly turning cold is “clear and convincing†evidence of ghosts. To other people, thinking of someone, and then running into them is “clear and convincing evidence†of extrasensory perception.”
Mr. Friedmen’s just doing a literary crib on “clear and present danger.†By Using this simile he can draw a parallel to a more famous usage of that term thereby increasing his comprehension and agreement rate to the people he’s preaching to. Nothing wrong with this at all, other than it’s pretty weighty language when measured against real-world evidence (as you were pointing out.) People for the most part see whatever they want to see and if someone is predisposed to see aliens in funny lights-in-the-sky than they will see aliens dag-nab-it!
Until Ufology decides to join the rest of the human race, “clear and convincing proof’s†going to be whatever notable Ufologests say it is—which may or may not be connected with reality.
Be good!
OE
There are several things that are telling about this incident. 1) there are no photographs of either the craft or the hole-punch-cloud, in an age where cameras are on every other cell phone? That’s incredible! 2) None of the dozens of trained observers who specialize in weather phenomena (E.G pilots) who were known to be working at the time saw anything out of the ordinary. And 3) So-called hole-punch clouds are a real phenomena, I’ve seen them myself. But I find it a fascinating coincidence that many of the images on this site are the direct result of passing aircraft.
Duh! O’Hare is an airport?
Not only are the natives going apeshit, they are doing so over a phony banana!