The Heavy Stuff

Hello, welcome back to The Heavy Stuff  (THS) - I appreciate you hitting the link. As you may know, in the last 10 days or so, a `video’ of the 2006 O’Hare Ufo Incident made it’s way to YouTube along with a fairly detailed `explanation’ of the person who summited it. (All relevant links will be at the bottom of this post.) Then, within days, that person was contacted by another person who claimed to also `film’ the unexplained event that was in the process of occurring.

Perhaps it would be better to say that the `event’ was caught from two different angles  — but - both - taken with 2006 cellphone technology, or earlier. Indeed, both of the 50 or so second videos are so `primitive’ looking as to almost be funny to be the one thing presented to `prove’ the event occurred. That said,  both of the videos  offer some minimal detail and realness - including the take-off of a plane in the beginning frames of the one video. The `new video’ is taken from a completely different location further from the `event’ (the first original video is taken from a very severe angle underneath the craft).

And, as one might expect, immediately - naysayers appeared to refute the `video’ and, somewhat, the `story’ - but, what was surprising is that the first `take’ was given by a `ufo’ writer ——— not some skeptic crew. Indeed, the title of his article was `Hoaxers Are Getting Bored’ - and he based his view on ——— that of another person. (Which I found a little strange.) But, that person was - indeed - an `expert’ on the affair 2006 event having been part of the investigation by  National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena - which produced a `negative’ report on the event in 2007.  And, that was not the only `expert’ who offered a negative take - the other is from the MUFON representative from Illinois.

But, perhaps we need to back up - and - shake our memories a little harder before the `videos’ are declared  fakes and the event - once again - pushed under the rug. So, in that regard — who remembers that when this `event’ surfaced that the CNN man was interviewing an airport worker cloaked in silhouette with voice distortion? I mean, how long before OR after has it been that you have seen a major news organization allow a person on-camera with such a story IN SILHOUETTE? This was the very definition of a hot story.

Perhaps some folks took the `event’ for what it was - extremely anomalous and very potentially a national security threat. After all, as I’ve made clear with long detailed points in my other posts, IF REAL, the `event’ was either a protocol of disclosure by a set of aliens; OR, a `blackmail threat’ by a superior group of humans not connected with a government organization. Very Very serious subject matter. (Even worse perhaps than connected to a government organization.)

So, is the YouTube poster - to be dissed for waiting? I don’t think so!

So, is the YouTube poster - to be dissed for not disclosing who they are now? I don’t think so! After all, to have the `angle’ presented - so underneath the `craft’ - could only mean - to me - that the person WAS ON THE AIRPORT GROUNDS OUTSIDE - ie: an airport employee - the very type of person said to have first reported the incident.

The next dismissal of the story - that the size was not congruent with previous `estimates’ of the craft (the YouTube poster said it was 100 meters) — he also said the craft was `closer-lower’ than - again - prior `estimates’ (which would make the craft appear larger). Indeed, lots of the criticism seems based on the `overcast’ and 1,700-1,900 ft cloud base level - and that the craft was described as `just below the cloudbase’.

But, do the naysayers as quickly forget that at least two different `sizes’ were given in all the initial reports too - one saying 30 ft or so and another saying 7 feet. Is it so hard to imagine that the `craft-event’ went up and down during the sighting - seeing how it `shot’ up thru the cloudbank to end the event (leaving a hole in the clouds).  What if the height `varied’ somewhat and the `real size’ of the `craft-event’ was 65 feet and the height level 1,350 feet — are we really gonna diss this whole thing based on a size estimate and height estimate (the YouTube poster put the craft at 700 ft, not the 1,700 of the initial report - which of course had no evidence.)?

Or, how about the outrageous suggestion that the craft was BOTH sizes - based on a cloaking manner - or ability to project into ones consciousness. Or that eye-witnesses seldom agree completely.

But, another thing also struck me. The `evidence’ that has literally trickled out prior to the latest - was not one or two photos; but, four or five pictures (see those in the links below) – which again - at the time, were quickly dissed. But, one thing ——————- those  photos support this NEW INFORMATION.

Indeed, if you check my links below you will see a `much bluer sky’ in one of the photos - and in some of the other ones - the photo seems to show the UFO in indeed a lower altitude than the 1,700 feet estimate. Memories can be short when the information was conflicting even at the time - but - now - with new information - perhaps more is beginning to really take shape.

Indeed, if you look at all the pieces and use some thoughtful mindfulness, and DON’T think hoax `first’ — than perhaps the information we have DOES make sense - regardless of reports and investigations.

Because, to me, IMHO - I think it looks like a `large object’ - of which I’d be hesitant to speculate based on the photo’s and videos - but, does look to be (truely guessing) to be up to 100 ft across - and at a lower altitude than 1,200 feet. Additionally, both video’s show a rotating disk, like some of the initial reports and at least one person of this new batch of info confirms the `shooting into the sky aspect’ of the final moments of the event.

So, that is how I see it. A little different than most perhaps - but - does anyone else provide you the very links of the evidence. But, then again, in this day and age - does the evidence even matter - when anything can be faked?

http://www.ufocasebook.com/twomoreohare.html (seems lower than 1,700 and has a little color in sky)

http://ufos.about.com/b/2007/01/26/second-ohare-airport-photo-surfaces.htm (even more bluish sky)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/chuckcirino/351112882/ (or how about this AMAZING one - have folks forgotten already?)

http://naturalplane.blogspot.com/2007/11/new-ohare-ufo-pics-released.html (these also were released very early)

http://ufomedia.blogspot.com/2007/01/ufo-curse.html (good overview near the time of the event - near the time of the FAA denial)

http://www.ufocasebook.com/ohare.html (the original internet take on the event)

The New Video Evidence - Video One - From Underneath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hMlCGnWkc4

The New Video Evidence - Video Two - From A Different Angle http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0_vzVw-dxg (note, this one has fewer than 4,000 views)

One of the first - dissing - reports of the new video - http://www.examiner.com/x-2363-UFO-Examiner~y2009m3d24-OHare-UFO-video-surfaces-on-Youtube

And, not far behind on the dissing - http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20090326/BLOG32/903269971?Title=Hoaxers-are-getting-boring

And, finally, my prior posts on the O’Hare Ufo Incident - Parts 1-4

http://theheavystuff.com/?p=9  http://theheavystuff.com/?p=11 http://theheavystuff.com/?p=13 http://theheavystuff.com/?p=14

Then, my original summation at (call it the original part 5) http://theheavystuff.com/?p=21 and finally my post one year after the event http://theheavystuff.com/?p=33

Finally, I bring you Joe Capp’s latest timely post concerning witnesses of Ufo’s - seems very timely indeed - http://ufomedia.blogspot.com/2009/03/ufo-pragmatism-killing-messenger.html

Thanks for reading - comeback soon - and bookmark us. Much more to be found down the page - or - on my front page. You can also see my NEW `best of ‘ site on squidoo at www.squidoo.com/AnomalyManArchive . Thanks for checking it out too.

The last time The Heavy Stuff wrote about Ufo’s was at the 200 day anniversary of the incident at O’Hare Airport on Nov. 7th of 2006 — The Heavy Stuff called it `O’Hare, 200 days and Fading’. And now, one day from the year anniversary of the `non-event’ - it seems a fitting time for a review of the `affair’.

I say the words `non-event’ for a reason - because basically, that was the conclusion of the FAA about the incident. According to the FAA’s denial one could say that a `non-circular, non-gray, non-solid object with non-space was seen in a non-location above a gate of the airport - hovering below the solid cloudbank - and - that the non-object occupied real reality until it shot up and the non-object poked a hole in the clouds’.  You see, the FAA has denied that an object was seen or that an object poked a hole in the clouds - the event - simply - didn’t occur.

OR, you could believe the witnesses.  Here’ a link with a video to one of the NOW FAMOUS situations that arose when the FAA denied the existence of the event at all — http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case958.htm – yes, this is ONE of the occasions within THIS YEAR that CNN interviewed these witnesses (workers at the airport) IN SILOUETTE. Darken, without showing their faces.

The Heavy Stuff asks you —- in this world of supposed extreme terror and unbalance on nearly every level — have you seen anyone ELSE interviewed in silhouette this year? Even once? The answer is NO. ONLY this raises to the level of witness protection.

The lesson is this - folks who blow the cover of the government on UFO’s can expect the need for witness protection. And, in this case why not. An object hovered in sight, in restricted airspace, over one of the busiest airports in the country. The obvious answer being one of two very unpleasant choices for the media to speculate about - either an advanced non human race or object was HERE - or - a group of humans here on Earth has access to technology our government doesn’t admit to having.

NO wonder that the media felt the witnesses needed protection - either of the outcomes outlined above — which, if enunciated by the media in detail - would change the world perspective about `who’s in control’. But, alas, we all didn’t have to worry at all. Instead, The O’Hare Ufo Incident will go down as the new textbook way the government will deal with these `obvious’ incidents. The answer; deny the event happened. End of story.

One can hope that perhaps tomorrow, on the anniversary, that the rumored video of the event will surface and shut up the naysayers. But, The Heavy Stuff doubts it. More likely there will be NO coverage by the media, even CNN (after all, Britney may be flashing her panties again and that is indeed news to be covered). More likely, the paranormal talk shows and websites will be alone in their `coverage’.

Finally, earlier this year THS (The Heavy Stuff) speculated that it would take another `obvious’ UFO event before the media ventured into the arena again. Indeed, THS, speculates that ONLY a LIVE Ufo event will force a change in the government nay-say position. THS has speculated that a UFO hovering over a Nascar event or anywhere long enough to be on live national news is the only chance for an honest answer from the government about UFOs’s.

The question - would the news-producer who decided to put the coverage on live be provided witness protection?