 |
rigorousintuition.ca
What you don't know can't hurt them. |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jeff Site Admin
Joined: 20 Oct 2000 Posts: 6776
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:12 pm Post subject: Airline witnesses upset by response to UFO sighting |
|
|
n the sky! A bird? A plane? A ... UFO?
Published January 1, 2007
It sounds like a tired joke--but a group of airline employees insist they are in earnest, and they are upset that neither their bosses nor the government will take them seriously.
A flying saucerlike object hovered low over O'Hare International Airport for several minutes before bolting through thick clouds with such intense energy that it left an eerie hole in overcast skies, said some United Airlines employees who observed the phenomenon.
Was it an alien spaceship? A weather balloon lost in the airspace over the world's second-busiest airport? A top-secret military craft? Or simply a reflection from lights that played a trick on the eyes?
Officials at United professed no knowledge of the Nov. 7 event--which was reported to the airline by as many as a dozen of its own workers--when the Tribune started asking questions recently. But the Federal Aviation Administration said its air traffic control tower at O'Hare did receive a call from a United supervisor asking if controllers had spotted a mysterious elliptical-shaped craft sitting motionless over Concourse C of the United terminal.
No controllers saw the object, and a preliminary check of radar found nothing out of the ordinary, FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Isham Cory said.
The FAA is not conducting a further investigation, Cory said. The theory is the sighting was caused by a "weather phenomenon," she said.
The UFO report has sparked some chuckles among controllers in O'Hare tower.
"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," said O'Hare controller and union official Craig Burzych.
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.
Witnesses shaken by sighting
"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 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."
Some joke, others research
The databases of various UFO-watching groups are full of accounts filed by pilots about sightings of unknown aircraft and anomalies that affected navigational equipment onboard planes.
Whether any of the UFO incidents are real or merely the result of individual perceptions, some experts say the events pose a potential safety risk to pilots and their passengers.
"There have been documented cases where safety appears to have been implicated, and more and more we are coming to the point of view that we are dealing with an intelligent phenomenon," said Richard Haines, science director at the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, a private agency.
"We must be proactive before an aircraft goes down," said Haines, a former chief of the Space Human Factors Office at NASA's Ames Research Center.
Haines is investigating the O'Hare incident. He said he has determined that no weather balloons were launched in the vicinity of O'Hare on Nov. 7.
"It's absurd that the military would be conducting aerial test flights" near the airport, Haines said.
All the witnesses to the O'Hare event, who included at least several pilots, said they are certain based on the disc's appearance and flight characteristics that it was not an airplane, helicopter, weather balloon or any other craft known to man.
United denies UFO report
They're not sure what was hanging out for several minutes in the restricted airspace, but they are upset that no one in power has taken the matter seriously.
A United spokeswoman said there is no record of the UFO report. She said United officials do not recall discussion of any such incident.
"There's nothing in the duty manager log, which is used to report unusual incidents," said United spokeswoman Megan McCarthy. "I checked around. There's no record of anything."
The pilots of the United plane being directed back from Gate C17 also were notified by United personnel of the sighting, and one of the pilots reportedly opened a windscreen in the cockpit to get a better view of the object estimated to be hovering 1,500 feet above the ground.
The object was seen to suddenly accelerate straight up through the solid overcast skies, which the FAA reported had 1,900-foot cloud ceilings at the time.
"It was like somebody punched a hole in the sky," said one United employee.
Witnesses said they had a hard time visually tracking the object as it streaked through the dense clouds.
It left behind an open hole of clear air in the cloud layer, the witnesses said, adding that the hole disappeared within a few minutes.
The United employees interviewed by the Tribune spoke on condition of anonymity.
Some said they were interviewed by United officials and instructed to write reports and draw pictures of what they observed, and that they were advised by United officials to refrain from speaking about what they saw.
Federal agency backtracks
Like United, the FAA originally told the Tribune that it had no information on the alleged UFO sighting. But the federal agency quickly reversed its position after the newspaper filed a Freedom of Information Act request.
An internal FAA review of air-traffic communications tapes, a step toward complying with the Tribune request, turned up the call by the United supervisor to an FAA manager in the airport tower, Cory said.
Cory said the weather might have factored into what the witnesses thought they saw.
"Our theory on this is that it was a weather phenomenon," she 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. That's our take on it."
Chicago Tribune |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hugh Manatee Wins
Joined: 23 Nov 2005 Posts: 8506 Location: in context
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:35 pm Post subject: You know my reaction. |
|
|
I remember hearing on National Propaganda Radio that the radar system had failed twice at O'Hare. Ouch.
But what a perfect opportunity to inject some psy-ops which is applied opportunistically when the occasion presents itself. Like Uri Geller claiming to have helped find Saddam in hiding by using his 'remote viewing' skills when many wondered how long Saddam had actually been in custody ready to be 'deployed' for maximum effect the way his hanging timed with dead soldier #3000.
Yes, the Operation Mockingbird media knows how to turn lemons into lemonaid and then piss it down our throats so we become disinclined to swallow anything at all.
| Quote: | | "It's absurd that the military would be conducting aerial test flights" near the airport, Haines said. |
About as absurd as the NORAD live-fly excercises called Operation Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian involving multiple hijacked planes crashed into buildings going on the morning of 9/11 when all of a sudden the real thing happened.
About as absurd as the Pentagon's military excercises going on near three major NYCity-area airports when TWA800 was accidentally (?) shot out of the sky by a surface-to-air missile on July 17, 1996 complete with a bogus computer-model cover-up tactic later used by the NIST to hide the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers on 9/11.
When used in Mockingbird media, UFO stands for Unidentified Frittering Object. _________________ CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
professorpan
Joined: 27 Apr 2005 Posts: 3540
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject: Leave it to Hugh |
|
|
Leave it to the manatee to paint everything that happens a psyop. I would be so happy to be able to have a discussion of a subject without it being hijacked into that tired arena...
This is a very interesting story -- probably the most well-documented UFO sighting in several years. The author of the story covers transportation news for the Chicago Tribune, and he appears to be covering this with a seriousness not often seen when it comes to UFOs. He's pressing for the release of all the control tower transcripts, and any records from U.S. Airways, via a pending FOIA request.
I'm looking forward to reading those transcripts, and I'll post them if I find them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pugzleyca3
Joined: 26 Sep 2005 Posts: 721
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: Yes, it is an interesting story |
|
|
I would like to see a subject here that isn't followed up with this tired refrain as well:
"Leave it to the manatee to paint everything that happens a psyop. I would be so happy to be able to have a discussion of a subject without it being hijacked into that tired arena... "
At least HMW is giving an opinion that relates to the issue and is not diverting attention totally away from the subject at hand and placing it onto another person who is posting their opinion.
I find this story very interesting and don't quite know what to make of it and I would like to see the transcripts, too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
chillin
Joined: 02 Aug 2005 Posts: 593
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:06 pm Post subject: Re: Leave it to Hugh |
|
|
| professorpan wrote: | | Leave it to the manatee to paint everything that happens a psyop. |
I have to agree, but not everyone can be a generalist.
In my opinion we're back and the woe unto them who can't respect their elders. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wombaticus Rex
Joined: 08 Nov 2006 Posts: 1933 Location: post-reality
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wild story, thanks, Jeff. _________________
| Jeff wrote: | | As I understand the current system, resources are allocated according to wealth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pirx
Joined: 05 Jan 2006 Posts: 371
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: Link for video at the Tribune site |
|
|
The video link seems to be Mac-proof no matter which browser I use.
Anyone else have luck with it?
http://tinyurl.com/y7tv88 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
judasdisney
Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 832
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Peter Davenport's often histrionic but nevertheless sometimes informative National UFO Reporting Center has a report here, from a taxi mechanic witness, loaded with misspellings & typos but nevertheless possibly valuable.
From Jeff's posted news report, "no controllers" but "at least several pilots" declared witness status, including one pilot who "opened a windscreen" to get a better look.
Also,
| Quote: | 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. |
This is rush hour, in Chicago, near O'Hare Airport. One of the most densely trafficked & populated areas during one of the most densely trafficked & populated times of day. It would be interesting to see whether others step forward (which is why I checked NUFORC).
And in this day & age, with cameras everywhere, from surveillance to cell-phones, you'd hope that someone would have the wherewithal to snap photos or check the parking lot CC archives. But then, perhaps the FAA/NSA/(et al) already have. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hugh Manatee Wins
Joined: 23 Nov 2005 Posts: 8506 Location: in context
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 10:57 pm Post subject: Consider whose credibility. Airline employees. |
|
|
Now whose credibility is being called into question here? I mean besides the OpMockingbird press. AIRLINE EMPLOYEES. 9/11? Get it? Context? Recent news?
| Quote: | | It sounds like a tired joke--but a group of airline employees insist they are in earnest, and they are upset that neither their bosses nor the government will take them seriously. |
Ring a bell? C'mon. We have a thread on this right on the dang front page of RI.
(Oh, and Pan, psy-ops is as common in media as gravity is in a mud slide.)
http://rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=10072
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-11-23-whistle-blower-faa_x.htm
Ex-employee says FAA warned before 9/11
Updated 11/24/2006 12:18 AM ET
By Catherine Rampell, USA TODAY
From 1995 to 2001, Bogdan Dzakovic served as a team leader on the Federal Aviation Administration's Red Team. Set up by Congress to help the FAA think like terrorists, the elite squad tested airport security systems.
In the years leading up to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Dzakovic says, the team was able to breach security about 90% of the time, sneaking bombs and submachine guns past airport screeners. Expensive new bomb detection machines consistently failed, he says.
The team repeatedly warned the FAA of the potential for security breaches and hijackings but was told to cover up its findings, Dzakovic says.
Eventually, the FAA began notifying airports in advance when the Red Team would be doing its undercover testing, Dzakovic says. He and other Red Team members approached the Department of Transportation's Office of the Inspector General, the General Accounting Office and members of Congress about the FAA's alleged misconduct regarding the Red Team's aviation security tests. No one did anything, he says.
Then came 9/11.
"Immediately (after 9/11), numerous government officials from FAA as well as other government agencies made defensive statements such as, 'How could we have known this was going to happen?' " Dzakovic testified later before the 9/11 Commission. "The truth is, they did know."
About a month after 9/11, he filed a complaint with the Office of the Special Counsel, the government agency that investigates whistle-blower cases. It alleged that the FAA had covered up Red Team findings. A subsequent Department of Transportation Inspector General's report, ordered by the OSC in response to Dzakovic's complaint, concluded that the "Red Team program was grossly mismanaged and that the result was a serious compromise of public safety."
After filing his complaint, Dzakovic was removed from his Red Team leadership position. He now works for the Transportation Security Administration, which has responsibility for airport security. His primary assignments include tasks such as hole-punching, updating agency phonebooks and "thumb-twiddling," he says. At least he hasn't received a pay cut, he says. He makes about $110,000 a year for what he describes as "entry-level idiot work."
TSA spokesman Darrin Kayser would not comment on Dzakovic's allegations that he was retaliated against for being a whistle-blower. He said in an e-mail, "While TSA transitioned functions out of FAA, many employees were doing work outside of their pre-9/11 duties. Once TSA was established, Mr. Dzakovic did find a productive position within the agency and has been a valued contributor in our efforts to provide the highest level of security in all modes of transportation." _________________ CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
judasdisney
Joined: 20 Jun 2006 Posts: 832
|
Posted: Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
National Pentagon Radio's innocuous, itching-to-ridicule audio story can be heard here.
Another unrelated (?) side-note: November 7 was Election Day in the U.S. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hugh Manatee Wins
Joined: 23 Nov 2005 Posts: 8506 Location: in context
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:33 am Post subject: OMG. 11/7/98 Dallas+Chicago+others, same symptoms as 9/11! |
|
|
| judasdisney wrote: |
Another unrelated (?) side-note: November 7 was Election Day in the U.S. |
Whoa! I think this is a diversion using 'UFO' viral marketing with a key date, November 7, when a newspaper article about glitching Airport Traffic-Control software was published by the Dallas Fort Worth Star Telegram, the same software glitching at O'Hare airport.
Why a diversion?
NORAD's failure on 9/11.Same problems: False blips, invisible planes, all kinds of chaos.
So the UFO story is probably to divert attention away from NOVEMBER 7 1998 in Dallas where the same computer program used in Chicago was doing exactly what happened on 9/11, showing nonsense and blinding air-traffic controllers.
And the FAA and air-traffic contollers were already lulled into accepting this as a normal problem, y'know, like electronic touch-screen voting 'glitches.' (Bottom of this post as an election fraud story from 1998.)
Consider how this 'software glitch' could be taken advantage of on 9/11 when false blips were all over FAA screens and transponders were being switched on and off with seemingly two planes with the same flight number. NORAD's Operation Vigilant Warrior and Operation Vigilant Guardian were in the air but helpless without a clue who else was in the air or where if this software 'glitch' was activated.
From a forum called The Risks Digest, Volume 20: Issue 7 which looks like it's all about software problems in safety issues--
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.07.html#subj5
| Quote: | Dallas-FortWorth ARTS air-traffic control upgrade backed out
"Peter G. Neumann" <neumann@csl.sri.com>
Wed, 11 Nov 1998 11:26:35 -0500
The ARTS 6.05 software in use at the DFW regional TRACON (Terminal Radar
Approach Control) center has been causing so much confusion for the
controllers (who maintained that safety was compromised, whereas the FAA and
the union had said there was no danger) that the system has been backed off
to an earlier version, ARTS 6.04. Reportedly, there some ghost
(nonexistent) aircraft showing up, while real planes were omitted.
Controllers noted that 200 complaints in the past month had been ignored by
the FAA until now. One particular case occurred on 30 Oct 1998, when a
flight disappeared for 10 miles. Another case involved a plane at being
handed off at 10,000 feet, with the recipient controller's screen showing
the plane at 3,900 feet. Such problems had not occurred with ARTS 6.04, but
ARTS 6.05 seems to have significant improvements (ignoring the glitches).
This is the same software that is used in Chicago (see the previous item in
this issue!), Denver, NY, and southern California.
``Officials compared the shift between the two programs to the difference
between the Windows 95 and Windows 98 operating systems on personal
computers. As with any new software, there are bugs to be worked out, they
said.'' [That is REALLY reassuring. PGN]
[Source: article by J. Lynn Lunsford, *Dallas Morning News*, 7 Nov 1998, and
an article by G. Chambers Williams III, Fort Worth Star Telegram, 7 Nov
1998; the quote relating to Windows 95/98 is from the FW Star Telegram
article. PGN Stark Abstracting] |
Now for the 1998 Chicago version of the same glitches--
| Quote: | O'Hare's radar malfunctioning
"Edelson, Doneel" <doneeledelson@aciins.com>
Thu, 29 Oct 1998 12:42:10 -0500
Air-traffic controllers say a new radar system has been malfunctioning,
causing them to lose track of planes at O'Hare International Airport, one of
the world's busiest airports. The computer system repeatedly drops critical
flight information, misidentifies aircraft location, and gives false
information, according to Kurt Granger, president of the National Air
Traffic Controllers Association in Elgin, Illinois. Federal Aviation
Administration spokesman Don Zochert denied Granger's claims, saying the new
system is safe. He said the new, up-to-date software is also used in
Denver, Dallas and New York City. [Source: *USA Today*, 29 Oct 1998] |
Same week. Salt Lake City gets a brief air traffic control black-out. Was this a test for sabotage?
| Quote: | http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.05.html#subj3
Salt Lake ATC center radar blackout affects 200 planes
Richard Schroeppel <rcs@VISI.NET>
Thu, 5 Nov 1998 12:03:50 -0500 (EST)
On 4 Nov 1998, the primary and backup radar systems for the Salt Lake Air
Traffic Control Center failed for about a minute, leaving about 200 planes
``up in the air'' over Utah, Nevada, Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Handoffs
were done manually (actually, orally). [Source: 4 Nov 1998,
http://www.nandotimes.com]
|
But wait. Same thing two weeks later on Nov. 24, 1998 at Dulles Airport in Washington, DC--
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.10.html#subj1
| Quote: | Dulles radar fails for half-hour
"Edelson, Doneel" <doneeledelson@aciins.com>
Tue, 24 Nov 1998 12:40:04 -0500
Radar failed for 31 minutes at the Washington D.C. area Dulles International
Airport, leaving air traffic controllers unable to tell the exact locations
of circling airliners. Controllers had no information on the altitude,
airspeed or identification of about a dozen planes circling the airport.
[Source: AP item in *USA Today*, 24 Nov 1998; PGN Abstracting] |
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.11.html#subj13
| Quote: |
Re: Dulles radar fails for half-hour (RISKS-20.10)
Steve Peterson <speterson@virtation.com>
Mon, 07 Dec 1998 22:56:45 -0600
RISKS-20.10 reports that, due to a radar failure, "controllers had no
information on the altitude, airspeed or identification of about a dozen
planes circling the airport."
While radar failures are certainly important, it's wrong to say that radar
failures deprive controllers of this information. In this situation, pilots
report all three items (plus their position) to ATC via radio. ATC
procedures provide for increased separation between aircraft to compensate
for the lack of radar data.
In the US (and presumably elsewhere), there are many places where reports by
the pilot are the _only_ source of information on the location of aircraft.
Steve Peterson, Principal Consultant, Virtation Technologies, Inc.
http://virtation.com |
An air-traffic controller gives a personal account--
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.12.html#subj2
| Quote: | Air-traffic control comments
"Paul Cox" <pcox@eskimo.com>
Wed, 9 Dec 1998 00:48:39 -0800
Hi. I'm an air-traffic controller at Seattle Center, located in Auburn,
Washington. I am particularly drawn to RISKS reports of problems with the
ATC system. I notice many times that, while generally accurate, there are
some small but crucial errors in the general assumptions and conclusions
drawn and made. For example, in RISKS-20.11, there is a response to the
Dulles radar failure issue. Steve Peterson says, in part:
> While radar failures are certainly important, it's wrong to say that radar
> failures deprive controllers of this information. In this situation,
> pilots report all three items (plus their position) to ATC via radio. ATC
> procedures provide for increased separation between aircraft to compensate
> for the lack of radar data.
> In the US (and presumably elsewhere), there are many places where reports
> by the pilot are the _only_ source of information on the location of
> aircraft."
While fairly reassuring, this isn't exactly true. First of all, "radar"
technically refers to the physical radar antenna; what we think of as ATC
"radar" display scopes are typically mosaics of multiple radar sites. The
physical radars themselves don't fail frequently at all; in fact, I've been
working as a controller for almost 8 years now and have never had it happen.
What I HAVE had happen, numerous times, is failures of the various radar
mosaic display systems, failures of the various communications systems, and
power failures to the entire facility (which, of course, take absolutely
everything. Except the cell phones in controller's cars.)
Getting back to what Steve Peterson said above, display system failures most
certainly DO deprive controllers of data such as heading, speed, and
altitude of aircraft. These three things are the most important, most
crucial components to data controllers need to do their jobs.
In essentially all ATC facilities, printed or hand-written strips are
required to be kept on each and every aircraft with needed data. In
practice, however, controllers (particularly in busy terminal facilities)
cannot keep those strips up to date. In practice, when working a busy
"final" or "arrival" sector in a terminal facility, controllers are keeping
the info on each plane in their head (which brings up some interesting
single-point-of-failure questions.)
Controllers are indeed perfectly capable of controlling traffic through
radio position reports, pencils, and their flight strips, as Mr Peterson
suggests; however, the bad news is that it is much, much slower and
inefficient. When the radar display unit fails, the controller scrambles to
his strips, tries to recall which of them were actively being worked by him
at the time, and re-establishes the "picture" in his head.
Good technique includes up-to-date strip marking; however, again, this is an
area where practice often falls behind idealism. Staffing shortages might
mean where, ideally, a controller working the radar will have an assistant
handling all the strip-marking and landline calls (to other controllers to
coordinate data); a controller might be normally capable of working a
position alone, but be "down the tubes" temporarily and have fallen behind
on his strip-marking; or he could simply be having a bad day.
What all this comes down to is that most of the time, there's not much
problem if the radar and/or radar displays fail. However, when they do (not
if; history shows us they fail again and again and again, and shows no sign
of abating) there is most definitely a temporarily greatly reduced safety
factor.
The transition times immediately following a failure can be complete and
utter chaos, and quite frankly would be quite terrifying to most pilots if
they could see what's happening on the other end of that radio link.
Paul Cox, Enumclaw, Washington
---------------------------------------------
TCAS stories - 1 good, 1 bad
David Wittenberg <dkw@cs.brandeis.edu>
Wed, 9 Dec 1998 10:20:18 -0500 (EST)
In *The Boston Globe* on 8 Dec. and *The New York Times* on 9 Dec. (see
RISKS-20.11) there is a story about two planes getting within 1.1 miles
horizontally and 900 ft. vertically when they were supposed to be separated
by at least 2 miles horizontally or 2000 ft. vertically. The planes were
warned by their TCAS systems and avoided each other. The controller's union
says they got too close in the first place because of a series of computer
failures, the FAA says the incident is under investigation. Both planes
were bound from the US to Europe and were talking to the Boston center.
[The *Globe* noted that there were 3 planes, and that when 2 of the planes
changed course to avoid collision, one was then heading into the third
plane.]
About a week earlier, there was a case where the TCAS told a Air
Ontario Dash 8 to climb to avoid a US air 737. The Dash 8 came within
300 ft. of a Northwest A-320 whose TCAS told it to descend. In this
case a controller noticed the "erratic" flight paths and intervened.
Neither the Times nor the Globe explained why the A-320 was told to
descend.
So the controllers got one pair of planes into a bad situation, and
TCAS bailed them out; and TCAS got another set of planes into a bad
situation and the controllers bailed them out. How are the pilots to
know which one to trust when they must make decisions quickly?
David Wittenberg <dkw@cs.brandeis.edu>
|
Then on January 15, 1999, the entire Northwest US ATC system failed.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.19.html#subj1
| Quote: | Complete ATC power failure in the U.S. Northwest
"Paul Cox" <pcox@eskimo.com>
Sun, 31 Jan 1999 22:36:22 -0800
Some time back, I wrote about some of the various risks involved with
air-traffic control computer-communication systems. I mentioned how even
with backup systems controllers are still extremely vulnerable to the power
going out.
Well, it happened. On 15 Jan 1999, at 2 pm, the power failed at Seattle
Center, an en-route ATC facility that covers nearly 300,000 square miles of
the NW United States. I had the unusually good luck *not* to be at work at
the time.
The power failed during a normal, routine quarterly test procedure on the
power supply units. To be honest, I don't understand the technical side of
how/why the power failed; I had it explained and I still didn't get it. But
the gist of it was that during the test, a circuit board didn't do what it
was supposed to, and there was a very brief (less than a second)
interruption of the power to our systems.
Unfortunately, our systems cannot handle any interruption, and thus all the
computers had to be rebooted and recalibrated. Our communication systems
failed completely, as they are totally computer-dependent, digitized,
touch-screen interface modules. This system took over a half-hour to
reload.
Our main radar displays all went out as well, and the backup display system
failed too. It took anywhere from 45 to 75 minutes for any radar displays
to come back at various sectors in the building.
Recall my description of how frantic controllers are when suddenly the
separation requirements for aircraft go from 5 miles to 20 miles (radar
environment to non-radar)? That is exactly what happened.
The only system that DID work is a hard-wired, emergency radio backup system
that only needs power to be supplied to it, but which is old-fashioned
enough that it doesn't have computers running it. Ironically, we had to
fight and fight and fight to have this system installed when our recent
upgrades took place.
Without it, we would have been completely helpless to communicate with any
aircraft in the area. With it, we were able to restore limited ATC service
within a couple of minutes, falling back on the "good old days" method of
pilots staying on specific airways, reporting their progress over certain
points on the ground, and using paper strips, pencils, and our heads to
figure out whether anyone was in conflict with anyone else.
This failure simply drives home yet again that backup systems are only as
good as the main systems IF those backups are equally dependent upon a power
supply. In fact, our backup communications system and backup radar display
systems were essentially worthless to us, because they failed at the same
instant as the main system did when the power died.
As long as you have a single point of failure in any system, it doesn't
matter how many backups you have downstream if they are dependent on that
point.
Fortunately, we still had the old-fashioned radios, not to mention the Mark
I Human Brain Wet Computers working for us.
Paul Cox ZSE |
The Pentagon had an unexplained 8 hour delay on info during 1999 bombing of Iraq.
Wonder if that happened on 9/11, too?
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.23.html#subj1
[quote]Software snafu slowed key data during Iraq raid
<Paul_Walczak@mail.arl.mil>
Fri, 26 Feb 1999 17:18:53 -0500
The U.S. Department of Defense is still studying the software glitch that
caused DOD's $184 million Global Transportation Network (GTN) to have up to
eight-hour delays in the availability of updated worldwide logistics
information during the December 1999 Desert Fox bombing operations, despite
GTN having being designed to provide updates worldwide within 30 seconds.
GTN has 23 interfaces with other systems. [Source: Article by Daniel
Verton (dan_verton@fcw.com), Federal Computer Week, week of 22 Feb 1999.]
[Reference added in archive copy. PGN]
[/quote]
Perhaps Webster Tarpley is right about a software-aided coup on 9/11.
Seems the Pentagon gets hacked more than it should.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.24.html#subj13
| Quote: | Regular break-ins at the Pentagon?
Martin Ward <Martin.Ward@SMLtd.Com>
Mon, 8 Mar 1999 10:33:08 GMT
A report from Edupage:
> The Pentagon says that defense analysts have successfully thwarted new and
> recent attempts to break into open Pentagon networks on the Internet. A
> Pentagon spokesman admits, "There are literally hundreds of attempts weekly
> to break into the computers. It's a constant because there's a certain
> cachet to getting into the Pentagon system." The Department of Defense
> insists that 99.95% of hacking attempts fail to penetrate beyond the open
> networks and pose no national security threat. (*The New York Times*,
> 5 Mar 1999)
So there are hundreds of attempts per week and 99.95% of them fail. Let's
assume about 200 attempts per week. That means, by my calculations, there
are about five *successful* attempts to break in to Pentagon systems every
year.
Sometimes, 99.95% success just isn't good enough.
Martin.Ward@durham.ac.uk http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dcs0mpw Erdos number: 4
Maintainer of the G.K.Chesterton web site: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dcs0mpw/gkc/
[Amazingly, Prentiss Riddle <riddle@rice.edu> came up with EXACTLY
the same numbers and the same conclusion. Unfortunately, the standard
response seems to be to "blame the hackers" (e.g., Cloverdale) rather than
to strive for systems that are significantly more secure! PGN]
|
Ex-CIA Director John Deutsch took home classified files on his computer.
Hope he didn't help model a new Operation Northwoods.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.30.html#subj3
| Quote: | Security is still a human problem
"Epstein, Jeremy" <Jeremy_Epstein@NAI.com>
Mon, 12 Apr 1999 14:32:47 -0700
Just in case you thought that security problems were solved by computers,
we're reminded yet again that it all comes down to trusted people doing the
right thing. I wonder if John Deutch got a copy of the Melissa virus,
potentially sending classified files to his closest friends?
A routine check of former CIA Director John Deutch's home turned up
31 files classified secret on his personal computer after he had
stepped down and was retained as a consultant. No prosecution is
planned, because the violations were not deemed criminal. [PGN-ed
from various sources, mostly Associated Press, 11 Apr 1999]
|
Did the autopilot fail on this Airbus jet? Former German Defense Minister Andreas von Bulow said in a 2002 interview that Lufthansa replaced the American flight computers on a delivered fleet of Boeings to avoid any 'rescues' ala Flight Termination System by the US government.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.32.html#subj1
| Quote: | Airbus Autopilot Failure?
Chuck Weinstock <weinstock@sei.cmu.edu>
Mon, 19 Apr 1999 16:49:28 -0400
I imagine it is too soon to know for sure whether it was an autopilot
failure. We've seen enough finger pointing in other incidents for us not to
believe the first reports without some additional evidence. Chuck
On 19 Apr 1999, an Air India Airbus 320 en route from Singapore to Bombay
via New Delhi had apparent had an autopilot failure at 27,000 feet,
resulting in a dive that injured three crew members (two seriously) and an
infant. The pilot was able to regain control, and manually flew the jet
to Bombay. [Source: AFP, 19 Apr 1999; PGN-ed] |
Now Chicago is glitched out May 5, 1999 on software that shows aircraft size. Hmm. That could be useful at the Pentagon on 9/11. Was that an A3 Skywarrior or a 757? Globalhawk or 767?
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.38.html#subj5
| Quote: | Computer glitches foul up flights at Chicago airports
"Keith A Rhodes" <rhodesk.aimd@gao.gov>
Fri, 07 May 1999 11:30:19 -0500
The Chicago area TRACON in Elgin was testing new software on 5 May 1999 that
displays aircraft sizewise. As a result of problems, there were serious
traffic problems at O'Hare and Midway. Even after fixes were made, delays
continued. United cancelled 25% of its afternoon flights, American 13%.
[Source: Associated Press, 5 May 1999; PGN-ed]
[Note: Why worry about Y2K when the day-to-day problems keep you busy
enough? By the way, these contingency plans will not work in a Y2K
environment if the FAA experiences simultaneous multiple system failures.
In this case, they never lost sight of the planes and were always in voice
contact. That's fine, so long as you have voice communications and a way
to track the aircraft. KAR]
|
Next, May 17, 1999 and Philadelphia Airport loses its 'mind.'
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.42.html#subj3
| Quote: | Airport radar comes under scrutiny
"Edelson, Doneel" <doneeledelson@aciins.com>
Tue, 25 May 1999 12:03:31 -0400
For as many as a dozen times during an hour-and-a-quarter period during the
midafternoon of 17 May 1999, repeated failures in a computer processor at
the Philadelphia International Airport caused the radar-osaurus system to
fail, losing partial data associated with each flight. The outage required
air-traffic controllers to resort to the even older paper-slip backup
system. As usual, the official spokesperson said ``There was no impact to
safety.'' [Source: an article in USA Today, 23 May 1999, which noted that a
power failure earlier in May had caused a 23-minute outage of radar scopes
and radio contacts in the same place; PGN-ed] |
July, 1999 -Pentagon employees told to change all passwords. All of them.
"DoD is starting to take computer security seriously." Um, starting??!!
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.50.html#subj6
| Quote: | DoD password management
<[Identity withheld by request]>
Wed, 21 Jul 1999 22:29:29 -0400
[This message is from Department of the Army civilian who has had Military
active duty (53) system administration duties. His or her identity is
withheld for obvious reasons. PGN]
I am an employee (15 + years) in the Department of Defense. In the last few
days I have received the most ludicrous requirement yet. It applies to
every part of DoD. It requires us to change every password on every system
and then power down and power up the system. I have been told this was
signed off by the Secretary of Defense upon urging by his Joint Task Force
for computer security. For Army systems, this came in the form of a
majordomo message. Last night I found out that it the aftermath of an
incident. Prior to this knowledge, a lot of us thought that this was just
an exercise.
When the initial message came in, MACOMS (Major Army Command typically 4
stars), RCERTS, and other institutions were called to see if this was a
hoax. It turns out it wasn't. They actually want us to complete this
requirement in less than 4 weeks. Initially, we weren't told the reason for
the requirement -- just to get it done.
Shortly thereafter, we received another report that tells us (1) not to use
the word "password" when directing our users to do this, (2) to use verbiage
to our users explaining the need for the password change that is untrue, (3)
to have the users change their passwords themselves rather that have the
system force them to do it. On (2), I don't think they intentionally wanted
us to lie; just obscure the reasons. I first take issue that they have us
(Sys Admin/Net Admin) mislead our installation users (another risk). Along
with every IT (govt. employee, contract, military) person whom I have talked
to at my installation, I think this requirement is overkill. In addition to
using a lot of resources, it causes us the question the credibility of the
people who are making these decisions. This in itself is a major risk.
Other thoughts:
1. Some people and sysadmins have about (3-7) passwords for various
systems. If they have to change all their passwords they are likely to
recycle the same passwords, on different systems.
2. I have spoken with my counterparts at different Army installations. For
the most part they want to define the problem away (i.e., NT domain
account is not computer account -- it is a resource account).
DoD is starting to take computer security seriously. However, they are
using sledgehammers to stamp out flies. By doing this they make us (sys
admins/net admins) question their capabilities.
There are several issues here. (1) military Vs civilian, (2) overreliance on
FUD contractors, and (3) honesty between levels of commands.
[Signed] A concerned but disillusion DoD employee
[There are certainly some pockets of enlightenment within DoD,
but there are also some incredible examples of ostrich mentality,
with heads in the sand. By the way, changing passwords does not
help if sniffers are already in place. The deeper problem, familiar
to RISKS readers, is the pervasive use of fixed passwords in the
first place. PGN] |
August, 1999 - 'Cellphone Sends Jet Off-course'...??..really? This isn't proven. Ever.
Is the cellphone vs plane thing a cover for DoD manipulating flight computers somehow?
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.53.html#subj1
| Quote: | Cell phone sends jet off-course
"Clark, David" <Dave.Clark@BCHydro.bc.ca>
Mon, 9 Aug 1999 12:28:45 -0700
>From: "Telecom News - August 6-9, 1999" News Summary
> "CELL PHONE SENDS JET OFF-COURSE", *Ottawa Citizen*, 7 Aug 1999
>
> "A Chinese plane drifted 30 degrees off course because a passenger failed
> to switch off his mobile telephone. A crash was narrowly avoided after the
> cabin crew found the phone during a desperate search while approaching
> Beijing airport. Mobile phones are banned on planes worldwide but a direct
> link with instrument failure has never been proved. The Beijing incident
> is likely to provoke new air safely fears in Asia where at least one crash
> is attributed to on-board phone use."
---------------------------------------------------
Cell phones and aviation electronics (re: Fear of Flying)
Glenn Carroll <gcarroll@lmi.net>
Sun, 8 Aug 1999 11:52:13 -0700 (PDT)
Both the original "Fear of Flying" post and the follow-up have glided over
another RISK: the airlines have no effective way of controlling or checking
the state of cell phones or other portable electronics.
>snip<
If cell phones or other p.e.s were as dangerous as some people claim, one
might have expected a terrorist attack via this channel by now. After all,
this would solve one of the difficult problems for the terrorist, which is
how to get the Harmful Device on board the aircraft. Either there have been
no such attacks, or they have been so ineffective as to go unnoticed...
|
October 1, 1999 - FBI Warns of Y2K Sabotage Viruses and Sleepers - ah, no doubt.
Ask Dov Zakheim, Deutch, and Zelikow about 'Imagining the Transformative Event.'
http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.61.html#subj4
| Quote: | FBI warns some Y2K fixes may be suspect
"NewsScan" <newsscan@newsscan.com>
Fri, 01 Oct 1999 06:10:52 -0700
The Federal Bureau of Investigation says that some of the Y2K-related
programming fixes that were undertaken by foreign contractors may contain
malicious code. "We have some indications that this is happening," says
Michael Vatis, head of the inter-agency National Infrastructure Protection
Center. "A tremendous amount of remediation of software has been done
overseas or by foreign companies operating within the United States." A
Central Intelligence Agency officer assigned to the Center said recently
that India and Israel appeared to be the "most likely sources of malicious
remediation" of U.S. software. "India and Israel appear to be the countries
whose governments or industry may most likely use their access to implant
malicious code in light of their assessed motive, opportunity and means,"
CIA officer Terrill Maynard wrote in the June issue of Infrastructure
Protection Digest. Such code could contain "time bombs" set to detonate at
some future date, disrupting service or compromising security and password
protections. The Special Senate Y2K committee, in its final report last
week, called such scenarios "unsettling." (Reuters/TechWeb 1 Oct 99)
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU19991001S0001;
NewsScan Daily, 1 October 1999, with permission)
[See also http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991001/tc/yk_code_2.html . PGN] |
October 21, 1999 - O'Hare employee charged with stealing SOLE source code for airport!
Who else would want this code besides a 'disgruntled employee?'
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.64.html#subj3
| Quote: | Single-Sourcing at the FAA
Eriks A Ziemelis <eazy@ecae.stortek.com>
Thu, 21 Oct 1999 08:58:17 -0600
From "The Chicago Tribune", 10/21/1999:
http://chicagotribune.com/news/metro/chicago/article/0,2669,ART-36492,FF.html
Thomas A. Varlotta stands accused of destroying the lone copy of source code
for a system to transfer flight control data between the control tower at
O'Hare airport and a control center in Elgin, IL. Luckily, in a raid on
Varlotta's home, authorities recovered an encrypted copy of the source code
and managed to decrypt it in six months. Otherwise, 3-5 more years to
rewrite the software.
Quote the FAA: "It's an efficiency issue, not a safety issue."
Paraphrasing the Department of Transportation investigator: Why did only one
person have the source code? "I'm just a layman," Harper said. But "that
doesn't sound like a good business practice," he said.
Comment #1: Not a safety issue? The old method of transferring data,
according to the article, was via telephone. Someone mishears and/or
transcribes the data incorrectly, anything in place to catch problems when a
controller call out the wrong plane, a dangerous course correction/altitude
change? Maybe not a safety issue, but, not comforting.
Comment #2: Noone heard of backups at the FAA? Varlotta was not working
alone on the project: noone else had a copy? FAA is not backing up their
software? We backup our software here every night and I still make a backup
of my own every other day, just to be analy-safe. |
October 31, 1999 - Egypt Flight 990 suddenly plummets, rises, plummets to ocean.
The US tries to blame the crash on a suicidal co-pilot. Many Egyptian
military honchos were reportedly aboard. Disinformationist Richard Hoagland gets in the act. Was the plane shot down?
http://www.disinfo.com/archive/pages/dossier/id311/pg1/index.html
| Quote: | Egypt Air Flight 990 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean on October 31st, 1999, just under an hour after taking off from New York City's 'JFK Airport', bound for Cairo, Egypt. All 202 passengers and 15 crew died, with wreckage and debris spread out over 36 square miles (94 sq. km) of stormy ocean surface about 60 miles (96 km) south of Nantucket Island. Just what caused this horrific crash is still not known.
....
The plane, according to early reports, began a steep dive from 33 000 feet, then pulled up sharply at 16 000 feet, climbing back up to 24 000 feet. At that point in began its final dive for the ocean, but according to a CNN report (November 4th, 1999), 'National Transportation Safety Board' radar operator John Clark said it appears that the jet was loosing pieces before it hit the water. Various officials in Egypt Air were quoted in December 1999, speculating that something had hit the tail of the plane, possibly breaking off the tail section.
There are rumors that there were almost three-dozen high ranking Egyptian military officers on board Flight 990, against Egyptian military regulations, that another country may have wanted to do in. There was the report in the days immediately following the crash, of Flight 990 having made an unscheduled stop at US Edwards Air Force Base, after flying out of Los Angeles, CA, but before flying on to New York City. One passenger, Edward McGlauglen, is reported to have insisted on disembarking in New York City, for fear that another passenger may have planted a bomb. As there has been no conclusion reached at this point in the investigation of the crash, rumors such as these abound. |
December, 1999 - Palm Spring Airport without radar for two weeks. Hm. Why?
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.73.html#subj1
| Quote: | Palm Springs airport radarless for almost two weeks
"Peter G. Neumann" <neumann@csl.sri.com>
Sun, 2 Jan 100 17:00:08 PST
The Palm Springs radar system was seriously undependable in December, and
was finally shut down for almost two weeks by the FAA. Controllers could
not track planes below 8000 feet via radar, and resorted to radio and visual
contact. The FAA of course said their were no safety problems (presumably
because of much wider spacing of planes -- one plane at a time in 30-mile
regions). Nevertheless, at least 15 incidents of avoidance based on cockpit
warnings were reported in 11 days. Two cases involved distances of about
400 feet, both involving smaller aircraft near commercial planes. [Source:
*Los Angeles Times*, 31 Dec 1999; PGN-ed] |
January 1, 2000 - Pentagon briefly blinds five of its own satellites for a few days with 'Y2K patch.' Wonder if there was anything they weren't supposed to see.
Guess it isn't just Diebold that breaks its own machines with 'fixes.'
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.75.html#subj1
| Quote: | More on Pentagon satellite data outage (RISKS-20.72)
"Peter G. Neumann" <neumann@csl.sri.com>
Sat, 15 Jan 2000 22:21:16 PST
We noted in RISKS-20.72 that the Pentagon satellite intelligence system was
unable to process data for 2.5 hours after the midnight GMT Y2K rollover.
Apparently the situation was much worse than initially realized. UPI
reported on 12 Jan 2000 that the problem was actually self-inflicted,
resulting from a misguided supposedly preventive software patch in a
sensitive NRO intelligence program called Talent Keyhole at Fort Belvoir.
For the next few days, there was only a trickle of data from 5 satellites.
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer shenanigans abound.
Like...early election fraud by the Mockingbird TV networks?
As an aside on computer election fraud, the same source cites the occurence of ABC accidentally posting 1998 election results before the election and being right in 61 out of 70 races. Looks like the possible rigged election exposure mistake might've been covered for by Fox putting up a ballgame score early. "oops."
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/20.05.html#subj3
| Quote: | ABC News posts election results before the election!
Martin Minow <minow@apple.com>
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 10:15:24 -0800
According to the Drudge Report <http://www.drudgereport.com>, ABC News
posted ``final election results'' on its web site late Monday night, i.e.,
before the election began. According to an apology from ABC News (also
quoted by Drudge) -- and reading between the lines -- they apparently posted
test data on their live Internet server. ABC News's web site is
<http://www.abcnews.com>. My very brief look at the ABC News site did not
turn up any explanation or apology on their site.
Martin Minow, minow@pobox.com
[For example, the dummy data showed incumbent Sen. Alfonse D'Amato
(Rep.) besting Charles E. Schumer (Dem) in the New York Senate race,
which turned out to be wrong. PGN]
[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> noted an article by
Adam Clayton Powell III on the same story, noting that ABC had the
right outcome on 61 out of 70 Senate and Governor races. That article
also noted that Fox TV had accidentally put up an advance dummy page for a
Yankee-Padre World Series game -- and almost got it correct! PGN] |
-------------------------------------------------------------- _________________ CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
Last edited by Hugh Manatee Wins on Tue Jan 02, 2007 5:51 am; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jeff Site Admin
Joined: 20 Oct 2000 Posts: 6776
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 12:42 am Post subject: Re: Consider whose credibility. Airline employees. |
|
|
| Hugh Manatee Wins wrote: | | Now whose credibility is being called into question here? I mean besides the OpMockingbird press. AIRLINE EMPLOYEES. 9/11? Get it? Context? Recent news? |
Here's a first-hand witness report posted on the "Astrology, Spirituality & Alternative Healing" board of Democratic Underground on November 8, nearly two months before the story broke:
purduejake Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Wed Nov-08-06 01:16 AM
Original message
UFO sighting at O'hare International
Edited on Wed Nov-08-06 01:17 AM by purduejake
I just finished reading "Voices of the Universe" by Suzanne Ward earlier this week and know many people are fans, so I thought this may be an appropriate place to post this message:
I'm an employee for a major airline at ORD and received a radio call from an employee concerning a flying object around his gate. I JUST finished reading Ward's book, so am really interested in such things. Anyway, I ran outside to see a dark metallic oval shaped disk hovering over the gate. I pointed it out to a colleague who agreed he hadn't seen anything like it before. I confirmed the sighting to our operations center and after about a minute, it zipped to the east and disappeared.
I drove over to the gate and the employees stated the object was rotating and looked like a metallic frisbee about 500-1000 feet directly above them. To make this even more interesting, nobody really looks directly up in our dangerous environment, but the employee said he felt compelled to look up for some unknown reason. The ceiling at the time was OVC 1900 ft. Our operations center was contacted and the pilots of the aircraft at the gate were notified and they too witnessed the object by opening the front windows and looking for themselves. 10-15 people witnessed this UFO and of all people, airline employees know what an airplane or helicopter looks like!
The FAA was contacted and there were no radar blips. A few of our employees were upset about this sighting, but were not afraid. They just had trouble accepting what they just saw and exactly what it means.
What do you think these displays are for? Why over the world's busiest airport in daylight of all places? Your thoughts? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Attack Ships on Fire
Joined: 10 Jun 2006 Posts: 504
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 1:42 am Post subject: Re: Yes, it is an interesting story |
|
|
| pugzleyca3 wrote: |
At least HMW is giving an opinion that relates to the issue and is not diverting attention totally away from the subject at hand and placing it onto another person who is posting their opinion.
|
What I find interesting is that Hugh is commenting on this story when he has questioned anyone having an interest in UFOs at all. I've looked back for a link to the thread I'm talking about and can't find it at this time, but I do recall Hugh leaving a reply to one of my postings stating something along the lines of "why would anyone have an interest in UFOs when matters on Earth demand more attention from us?" And then I see Hugh leaving his two cents in a UFO thread...
In my opinion, Hugh has already made up his mind on a number of subjects debated here on RigInt and isn't open to any other interpretation, hell or high water come his way. This was made abundantly clear to me when I engaged Hugh in a debate about a movie that was coming out this past fall called "The Fountain", in which I was trying to show him that there must be *some* mainstream Hollywood movies are not products of some shadowy psyop/black intel marketing group designed to mass control the populace. In the middle of our debate Hugh lost interest and left the thread.
And now he is here presenting a case that ignores the main factoid from the article, that an unknown vehicle seemed to be floating above O'Hare last November, and instead trying to make it sound like it was released as some kind of distraction away from an event that took place in 1998.
The reason I'm calling attention to this Hugh is because I would rather see you command your focus on the meat of the story -- that there may have been a strange craft stationed above the airport and no government agency seems to be listening to the eyewitnesses. As much as I like to see people express their beliefs and opinions that counter my own thoughts on the subject being discussed, you sound more and more like a broken record Hugh, unwilling and unable to even open your mind to the possibility that you may not have the whole picture of what is going on with some aspects of the world. Why is it that you dismiss UFO sightings Hugh? Does the idea of some UFOs actually being under non-terrestrial control somehow diminish your belief in secret conspiracies orchestrated by financial/government elite? When I came right out and asked you directly in the synchonicity thread (http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=9960&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45)
if you thought "all accounts of alien abduction experiences are mind control experiences created by human black ops programs" you never answered my question. When Jeff opened a thread that presented a story about Britain's MoD commenting about aliens attacking at any time you made a post that diminished any discussion about the possibility that there could be extraterrestrials and instead again brought up terrestrial causes (http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board/viewtopic.php?t=9139).
I think that what Hugh brings to these discussions is important and keeps us on our toes. I don't doubt that he has a genuine passion for exposing the black heart that beats behind some of the world's charade. Nevertheless, I also think he diminished the evidence that there are some unusual events taking place on Earth that cannot be explained using conventional techniques, and sometimes his comments border on arrogance to those that have beliefs opposite to his own -- and I say this with respect to Hugh as a particpant to RigInt and as someone that has enjoyed debating with him in the past. This isn't the first time this accusation has been leveled at Hugh, and I realize that it could smear my reputation with those that are strongly pro-Hugh. Still, the time has come when I need to speak up and voice my concerns over what is being said, and the way it is being said, by Hugh. There is no reason that discussions on the possibility that UFOs, magick, syncronicity, ghosts or any other high weirdness phenomenon shouldn't be given the same kind of respect as discussions on counter 9/11 theories, NWO, Bush family lineage or Johnny Gosch talk especially if there is sufficient evidence presented that something is indeed factual to these claims.
You know Hugh, I'm certain that there are some involved in the UFO arena that would look at your wide dismissal of the stronger evidence from this field and believe that you're a part of the alleged conspiracy to cover up the true nature behind the mystery, working the internet to sweep up any real UFO sightings under the cover-all carpet of government conspiracies concerning illegal immigration, money laundering and vote hijacking. Based upon some of your previous claims about how Hollywood supposedly makes its movies, subconscious programming in the mass media and cover stories about UFO sightings designed to deflect attention from past events, I hope that you can appreciate the irony in the present situation.
If you would like to have a talk about what you may or may not believe about the UFO phenomena, I'm game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Wombaticus Rex
Joined: 08 Nov 2006 Posts: 1933 Location: post-reality
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
That was a great sequence of articles hugh just posted up in this thread, though.
I think we should all just accept that the RI board has a resident crazy uncle. _________________
| Jeff wrote: | | As I understand the current system, resources are allocated according to wealth. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
monster
Joined: 11 Aug 2005 Posts: 1655 Location: Everywhere
|
Posted: Tue Jan 02, 2007 2:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The FAA is not conducting a further investigation, Cory said. The theory is the sighting was caused by a "weather phenomenon," she said. |
Wow, it's the same old thing for over fifty years now. I'm surprised they didn't use the actual words "swamp gas". |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|