UFOmystic reader Raven tipped us off to an update on the O’Hare Airport sighting. You can read about the background of the case here on UFOmystic.
Here is Raven’s message:
Just an update on the O’Hare Airport sighting, John Hilkovitch, who broke the story for the Chicago Tribune has continued to follow up on the story. Kind of unusual for mainstream media regarding this topic.
He gave a video interview which contains both the pre-interview discussion as well as the broadcast portion. Of interest is that United Airlines, who at first backpeddled and said they’d received no reports of the incident at all, now appears to be backpeddling on their backpeddling and there is talk now that the pilots of a plane that was on the ground at the time may not only have poked their heads out the window for a look, but that one of them had a digital camera and snapped some pictures of the object. Running time for the video piece is a little over 8 minutes in length.
And here is the video interview:
Update: As Greg Taylor alludes to, the video was removed from the LiveLeak site where we were showing the video from. We have now linked to the version that is uploaded to youtube. We will monitor to see how this progresses.
You have to wonder, though, if pictures were taken by the pilots, would they be willing to come forward with them given the poor reception UFO reports made by pilots have been given by the airline industry historically.
It’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. If the pilots deny that pictures have been taken, the conspiracy camp is going to raise the cry of “suppression and intimidation,” while the unbelievers’ camp is going to say, “See, they always claim hard evidence but every time an opportunity comes up to produce it the alleged evidence fails to materialize.”
Don’t forget the commercial aspect in all this: many people’re convinced there’s absolute fortunes to be made out of pics/vids of this nature, especially if they’ve gotten hold of anything decent; and even when people aren’t just being mercenary, or even just fearful of being ripped off, many folk just don’t want even so much as a second of their fifteen minutes worth of fame.
p.s.
I know it’s a bit late, Nick, but…HAPPY NEW YEAR!
p.p.s.
or maybe that should be UN(happy new year), ’cause they always tend to be more interesting…with the benefit of hindsight.
“You have to wonder, though, if pictures were taken by the pilots, would they be willing to come forward with them given the poor reception UFO reports made by pilots have been given by the airline industry historically.”
Actually, I don’t wonder at all - of course they would bring the photos/video forward, unless of course they show something mundane, which would make the pilots look silly. These guys have already come forward and offered their witness accounts (i.e. they’ve taken the most difficult step) - surely offering photos or video that would potentially corroborate that wouldn’t be much of a leap at all (and might actually make them some money, if it was really sensational stuff).
And, to my knowledge, there has never been a pilot fired for making a UFO report, or putting forward pictures. Indeed, if they were canned for that they would have a pretty good case for unjust dismissal, particularly where they’re unionized.
So, if photos exist, I expect to see them - unless, as I said, they show something that might indeed make the pilots et al look silly, like… well, nothing anomalous.
The story of Captain Kenju Terauchi of JAL Flight 1628 comes to mind. His report of a UFO encounter over Alaska is well known. Despite both Terauchi and his crew being found both competent and professional in an investigation by the FAA, he was grounded and assigned a desk job shortly after he made a public statement regarding his experience.
Protocols for pilots, flight crews, and other aviation personnel reporting UFOs, (among other things,) were established in 1966 under JANAP 146. These protocols apply to both military and civilians, and have never been rescinded.
UFOs are specifically cited as being within the scope of JANAP 146(E) (see Chapter II/Section I/201/a/1/c). The military, commercial and civilians covered under this protocol are broad, and include Canadians as well as US citizens (see Chapter I/Section 102/b/#1-6.)
Of particular note is the threat of penalties in Chapter II/Section III/208, which reads:
“Transmission of CIRVIS reports are subject to the Communi-cations Act of 1934, as amended, and the Canadian Radio Act of 1938, as amended. Any person who violates the provisicns of these acts may be liable to prosecution thereunder. These reports contain information affecting the National Defense of the United States and Canada. Any person who makes an unauthorized transmission or disclosure of such a report may be liable to prosecution under Title 18 of the US Code, Chapter 37, or the Canadian Official Secrets Act of 1939, as amended.”
That’s reasonably intimidating language and no doubt dissuades many pilots from speaking openly about reports. There is a general agreement among pilots and aviation employees that to speak up about personal encounters would lead to repercussions.
Seems the video has been removed from the above site. I’ve posted a YouTube version for anyone that missed it, though I guess it’s likely it will be disappeared at some point as well.
Perhaps the biggest issue raised by the video is: how the heck did Peewee Herman get a gig doing the news?
[...] From Anomaly TV’s website, a link and commentary on this apparently leaked video from a local Chicago news broadcast. Before the live feed begins, the newscaster banters about the sighting with the Chicago Tribune’s transportation writer John Hilkevitch, who broke the story on January 1st. Miles Lewis of Anomaly TV points out, “Curiously, the footage ends with an unidentified male voice beginning to say, “It would’ve landed but, um …†[...]
Jan 14 2007 
January 14th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
Nick:
Which has been my point all along - there should be video, or photos. So let’s see it, if it exists. Then we can judge one way or another.
Paul
January 14th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Paul,
You have to wonder, though, if pictures were taken by the pilots, would they be willing to come forward with them given the poor reception UFO reports made by pilots have been given by the airline industry historically.
It’s a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. If the pilots deny that pictures have been taken, the conspiracy camp is going to raise the cry of “suppression and intimidation,” while the unbelievers’ camp is going to say, “See, they always claim hard evidence but every time an opportunity comes up to produce it the alleged evidence fails to materialize.”
January 15th, 2007 at 9:12 am
Don’t forget the commercial aspect in all this: many people’re convinced there’s absolute fortunes to be made out of pics/vids of this nature, especially if they’ve gotten hold of anything decent; and even when people aren’t just being mercenary, or even just fearful of being ripped off, many folk just don’t want even so much as a second of their fifteen minutes worth of fame.
p.s.
I know it’s a bit late, Nick, but…HAPPY NEW YEAR!
p.p.s.
or maybe that should be UN(happy new year), ’cause they always tend to be more interesting…with the benefit of hindsight.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Raven:
You wrote:
“You have to wonder, though, if pictures were taken by the pilots, would they be willing to come forward with them given the poor reception UFO reports made by pilots have been given by the airline industry historically.”
Actually, I don’t wonder at all - of course they would bring the photos/video forward, unless of course they show something mundane, which would make the pilots look silly. These guys have already come forward and offered their witness accounts (i.e. they’ve taken the most difficult step) - surely offering photos or video that would potentially corroborate that wouldn’t be much of a leap at all (and might actually make them some money, if it was really sensational stuff).
And, to my knowledge, there has never been a pilot fired for making a UFO report, or putting forward pictures. Indeed, if they were canned for that they would have a pretty good case for unjust dismissal, particularly where they’re unionized.
So, if photos exist, I expect to see them - unless, as I said, they show something that might indeed make the pilots et al look silly, like… well, nothing anomalous.
Paul
January 15th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Paul,
The story of Captain Kenju Terauchi of JAL Flight 1628 comes to mind. His report of a UFO encounter over Alaska is well known. Despite both Terauchi and his crew being found both competent and professional in an investigation by the FAA, he was grounded and assigned a desk job shortly after he made a public statement regarding his experience.
Protocols for pilots, flight crews, and other aviation personnel reporting UFOs, (among other things,) were established in 1966 under JANAP 146. These protocols apply to both military and civilians, and have never been rescinded.
UFOs are specifically cited as being within the scope of JANAP 146(E) (see Chapter II/Section I/201/a/1/c). The military, commercial and civilians covered under this protocol are broad, and include Canadians as well as US citizens (see Chapter I/Section 102/b/#1-6.)
Of particular note is the threat of penalties in Chapter II/Section III/208, which reads:
“Transmission of CIRVIS reports are subject to the Communi-cations Act of 1934, as amended, and the Canadian Radio Act of 1938, as amended. Any person who violates the provisicns of these acts may be liable to prosecution thereunder. These reports contain information affecting the National Defense of the United States and Canada. Any person who makes an unauthorized transmission or disclosure of such a report may be liable to prosecution under Title 18 of the US Code, Chapter 37, or the Canadian Official Secrets Act of 1939, as amended.”
That’s reasonably intimidating language and no doubt dissuades many pilots from speaking openly about reports. There is a general agreement among pilots and aviation employees that to speak up about personal encounters would lead to repercussions.
January 15th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Seems the video has been removed from the above site. I’ve posted a YouTube version for anyone that missed it, though I guess it’s likely it will be disappeared at some point as well.
Perhaps the biggest issue raised by the video is: how the heck did Peewee Herman get a gig doing the news?
Kind regards,
Greg
January 23rd, 2007 at 9:34 pm
[...] From Anomaly TV’s website, a link and commentary on this apparently leaked video from a local Chicago news broadcast. Before the live feed begins, the newscaster banters about the sighting with the Chicago Tribune’s transportation writer John Hilkevitch, who broke the story on January 1st. Miles Lewis of Anomaly TV points out, “Curiously, the footage ends with an unidentified male voice beginning to say, “It would’ve landed but, um …†[...]