The Vault Files: 2006 O’Hare International Airport UFO Sighting

Table of Contents

• Executive Summary
• The Sighting: November 7, 2006
• Eyewitness Accounts and Reactions
• Initial Response by United Airlines and FAA
• NARCAP Investigation and Findings
• Media Coverage and Public Reaction
• Proposed Explanations
• Unexplained Aspects and Significance
• Conclusion
• Sources / References

Note: The re-creation imagery used in this article to represent the 2006 O’Hare International Airport UFO incident is based on documented witness testimony, FAA audio recordings, NUFORC reports, and the NARCAP TR-10 investigation. While care was taken to remain faithful to the accounts, elements such as the object’s exact shape, altitude, and visual scale are subject to variation among observers. These visuals are intended to illustrate the events and support the narrative, not to depict exact photographic evidence. 

Executive Summary

On November 7, 2006, around 4:15 p.m. local time, a group of United Airlines employees at Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport reported seeing a mysterious unidentified flying object (UFO) hovering over Gate C17 in the United terminal[1]. The object was described as a metallic, disc-shaped craft, dark gray in color, about 6 to 24 feet in diameter, and it was completely silent[2]. After several minutes of hovering below a low cloud ceiling, the disc abruptly shot upward at high velocity, punching a crisp circular hole through the clouds before disappearing―an occurrence witnesses described as “like somebody punched a hole in the sky”[3][4]. Despite multiple credible eyewitness accounts, including airport pilots, mechanics, and managers, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) initially denied any knowledge of the incident and declined to investigate, later suggesting that the sighting was caused by a weather phenomenon[5][6]. To this day, the O’Hare airport UFO encounter remains unexplained, and it is often cited as one of the most notable UFO sightings of the 21st century, raising questions about aviation safety and how such incidents are handled by authorities[7][8].

The Sighting: November 7, 2006

The incident unfolded on a cloudy afternoon at one of the world’s busiest airports. At approximately 4:15 p.m. CST on November 7, 2006, a ramp employee on the tarmac at O’Hare Airport spotted an unusual object hovering above Gate C17 in Terminal 1 (the United Airlines concourse)[9][10].

This worker was in the process of directing United Flight 446, a Boeing 737 bound for Charlotte, when he looked up and saw a disc-shaped “craft” directly above the gate area[9]. He notified the departing flight’s cockpit crew about the object, and word of the sighting quickly spread through United’s ground personnel via radio. Soon, dozens of other airport employees — including pilots in nearby aircraft, airline supervisors, mechanics, and ramp workers — rushed to get a look at the phenomenon[11][12].

Witnesses observed the object hovering at an altitude they estimated to be anywhere from roughly 500 to 1,500 feet above the ground, just under the cloud layer that day[13][14]. Everyone agreed it had a distinctly defined saucer-like shape and a dull metallic gray color. No lights were visible on it, and it made no sound whatsoever[13]. Some witnesses described it as rotating like a Frisbee, while others thought it appeared stationary despite its spinning-disc appearance[13][15]. All eyewitness accounts concurred that the object was definitely not an airplane or any familiar aircraft; it lacked wings, engine noise, or standard navigation lights[16][14].

After hovering in place for several minutes above Gate C17, the UFO abruptly accelerated straight up. It shot vertically through the overcast sky at a tremendous speed, causing a peculiar visual effect: as it pierced the cloud deck (estimated at ~1,900 feet altitude that day), it left behind a clean, circular hole in the cloud cover[3][4]. Multiple witnesses saw this hole appear in the otherwise unbroken cloud ceiling. They reported that the hole lingered for a few minutes as a window of clear air before the clouds gradually drifted in to close it[4]. One United employee later vividly remarked, “It was like somebody punched a hole in the sky”, referring to the sudden opening the object created[4]. This strange hole-punch effect, coupled with the object’s sudden departure, left witnesses both astonished and uneasy.

Eyewitnesses estimate the UFO hovered for roughly 5 to 10 minutes in total before it departed[18][19]. During that period, it remained motionless just below the cloud ceiling, offering observers on the ground a clear view of its shape and color against the overcast sky[13]. The object was small relative to a commercial airliner — various accounts guessed its diameter was anywhere from around 6 feet up to 24 feet across[13][15]. (A later analysis by the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena, NARCAP, concluded the object might have been larger, on the order of 22 to 88 feet in diameter, if it was closer to the cloud altitude when seen[20].) Its abrupt vertical departure was so rapid that several witnesses admitted they had trouble visually tracking it as it streaked into the clouds[21][15].

Notably, no air traffic controllers in the O’Hare control tower saw the object during the event, and it did not register on the airport’s radar systems at the time[22][23]. The control tower was located on a different part of the airport and the controllers’ view of Gate C17’s airspace was partially obstructed by the terminal buildings, which may explain why they did not visually observe the hovering disc[24][25]. Additionally, the object was small and stationary, which could make radar detection difficult if it lacked a transponder; indeed, an FAA review of radar data found “nothing out of the ordinary” on radar returns during that period[26][23]. From the tower’s perspective, nothing unusual was officially noted during those minutes – the UFO essentially went unnoticed by on-duty controllers, even as it was being watched intently by airline personnel on the ground below.

Eyewitness Accounts and Reactions

Multiple eyewitnesses provided detailed, strikingly consistent accounts of what they saw, though most spoke only on condition of anonymity (due to fear of ridicule or admonishment from their employers)[27][28]. The first known witness was the United ramp employee (“Witness A” in NARCAP’s report) who was guiding Flight 446 at Gate C17 when he looked up and observed the disc directly above his position[29]. He described the object as a “round rotating disc” hovering at an altitude he initially estimated to be 500–1,000 feet overhead[30]. According to his report, after a couple of minutes the object “shot off” straight upward, punching through the clouds and out of sight[31]. The witness recalled seeing blue sky through the hole for a brief moment as the object departed[32]. He was adamant that what he witnessed was a solid object and not an illusion: “I know that what I saw … definitely was not an [Earth] aircraft,” the employee later told the Chicago Tribune[33][13].

Two other key witnesses were United Airlines pilots (identified as Witnesses B and C) who were in the cockpit of an empty Boeing 777 nearby. They were taxiing the aircraft from the gate area to a maintenance hangar when they heard radio chatter about the sighting and spotted the object themselves[33][14]. Both pilots opened their cockpit side windows to get an unobstructed look upward. They saw a saucer-like craft hovering above Concourse C and observed it for several minutes[34][35]. One of these pilots, a United mechanic who was taxiing the 777, later told reporters he is “scientific by nature” and was initially skeptical that a UFO would hover over a busy airport – yet he conceded that “what I saw … stood out very clearly, and it definitely was not an aircraft” of any conventional type[33][36]. This pilot’s immediate reaction was a mix of astonishment and concern; like others, he noted the object had no recognizable features of airplanes or helicopters (no wings, tail, or sound) and moved in a manner unlike anything he’d seen in his aviation career[14][4].

Several other United employees witnessed the event from various vantage points. A United supervisor in Concourse B (the adjacent terminal concourse) ran outside onto the ramp area after hearing excited radio chatter on the airline’s internal frequencies[37]. He arrived just in time to catch a glimpse of the disc before it vanished. This manager later recounted, “I stood outside in the gate area not knowing what to think, just trying to figure out what it was. I knew no one would make a false call like that.” He and others emphasized that the reports were treated seriously among the staff – if some unknown object was hovering over O’Hare, it presented a potential hazard that needed attention: “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,” the supervisor explained of his concern[38][3]. Another employee, a United airline mechanic, was reportedly so shaken by the sighting that he “experienced some religious issues” afterward – suggesting the event challenged or deeply disturbed his personal beliefs[33][39]. Co-workers described this individual as emotionally distressed by what he had seen.

In total, by most counts, at least 10–12 United Airlines personnel witnessed the object during the brief time it was visible[1][40]. Their ranks included pilots, ground crew, baggage handlers, a cockpit crew taxiing a plane, mechanics, and managers. While there were minor discrepancies in their reports (for example, some weren’t certain if the disc was spinning or not, and estimates of its exact altitude varied), their descriptions of the object’s appearance and behavior were remarkably congruent on the critical points[41][15]. All of them asserted that something very real and very unusual had been hovering over the airport that day, and all were confident it was not a known aircraft or weather balloon[42][14]. Importantly, some independent witnesses outside the airport may have also seen the object. In the weeks after the incident, several individuals in the Chicago area (including at least one person driving near O’Hare and a passenger on an incoming flight) came forward with reports of seeing a strange disc or “oval object” in the sky near the airport on November 7 at around 4:30 p.m.[41][43]. These external sightings, logged in databases like the National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC), corroborate the timing and general description of the object, though they are fewer in number compared to the United employee accounts[43][44].

The reactions among the United staff witnesses ranged from awe to anxiety. Several witnesses admit to being “upset” or frustrated that what they saw was not taken seriously by authorities[43][45]. One United employee could not shake an uneasy feeling after the object disappeared, worrying about the implications: “Whatever the thing was, it could have interfered with O’Hare’s radar or other equipment, or even caused a collision,” this witness later told the Tribune, emphasizing the potential safety risk that an unknown object posed in busy airspace[46][47]. In interviews, none of the airport worker witnesses jumped to the conclusion that it was an “alien spaceship” or made claims about extraterrestrial origin[48]. In fact, a number of them expressed skepticism about extraterrestrials yet remained adamant that an unidentified craft of some kind had been present. As one pilot said, “I don’t understand why aliens would hover over a busy airport, but I know what I saw … was not an Earth aircraft”[33][49]. This down-to-earth attitude lent additional credibility to their accounts in the eyes of investigators; they were experienced aviation professionals who reported the incident out of genuine concern for safety rather than sensationalism[48][42].

Initial Response by United Airlines and FAA

In the immediate aftermath of the sighting, the response from official channels was notably guarded and dismissive. When employees first began reporting the UFO over Gate C17 on the radio, the matter was relayed up the chain within United Airlines. A United operations supervisor at O’Hare (reportedly a woman named Sue, based on transcripts) phoned the FAA air traffic control tower to alert them to what was being seen.

However, the initial call to the FAA tower was met with disbelief and humor rather than action[50][51]. According to FAA recordings later obtained via the Freedom of Information Act, at about 4:30 p.m. the United supervisor asked the tower, “Hey, did you see a flying disc out by C17?”[50]. The controller on duty jokingly replied, “You guys been celebrating the holidays or what? … I haven’t seen anything, and if I did I wouldn’t admit it.”[52]. He then added, “No, I have not seen any flying disc at gate C17… unless you’ve got a new aircraft you’re bringing out that I don’t know about,” which drew laughter from both sides of the call[53][54]. In essence, the tower personnel did not take the report seriously at that moment – they treated it as a likely prank or misunderstanding.

Over the next 15–20 minutes, as the UFO sighting continued, United employees grew more insistent. The United ramp supervisor made a second call to the tower around 4:50 p.m., after the object had departed, trying to ensure the incident was at least noted. In this follow-up call (also captured on tape), she said plainly: “This is [Sue] from United… There was a disc out there flying around.”[55][56]. The controller (now a different individual) reacted with surprise: “There was a what?” – “A disc,” she repeated, “like a UFO or something”[57][58]. She emphasized to the FAA manager that “I’m not high and I’m not drinking” and that multiple personnel saw it, even mentioning “someone got a picture of it”[59][60]. The tower replied that they hadn’t seen anything on their side but would “keep an eye out,” effectively ending the conversation without further action[61]. (It is worth noting that the claim of a photograph is tantalizing – one United employee apparently snapped a picture of the object with a personal camera or phone[62]. However, no such photo has ever been publicly released or verified, and United Airlines did not provide it to investigators. The existence of a photo remains unconfirmed.)

When journalists later inquired about the incident, United Airlines officially denied having any record of its employees reporting a UFO. United spokesperson Megan McCarthy told the Chicago Tribune that there was “no record of anything” unusual that day: “There’s nothing in the duty manager log,” she said, referring to the internal log for significant events[63][64]. United management claimed they were not aware of the incident and that no formal report had been made within the company. Behind the scenes, though, it became known that United managers had, in fact, interviewed some of the witnesses soon after the event. Several employees later told NARCAP investigators that they were asked by United officials to write reports or draw sketches of what they saw, but also were instructed not to discuss the incident with others[27][65]. This suggests that United did conduct an internal inquiry of sorts – at least gathering statements – even if they chose not to publicly acknowledge it. (A NARCAP report mentions that United Airlines “allegedly began its own internal safety review” of the incident, but the findings of any such review were never made public[66].)

On the government side, the FAA initially flat-out denied any knowledge of the UFO sighting. When Chicago Tribune reporter Jon Hilkevitch first contacted the FAA in late 2006 while investigating the story, FAA spokespeople insisted they had no information or reports about any unusual object over O’Hare on November 7[67]. The FAA’s Midwest Public Affairs manager, Elizabeth Isham Cory, stated that controllers saw nothing on radar or visually, and thus “we’re not conducting any investigation”[26]. Only after the Tribune filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request did the FAA reconsider its stance. In response to the FOIA inquiry, the FAA quietly reviewed its air traffic control tapes and archives from that day[68][69]. This internal review led to a reversal: the FAA discovered the recorded phone calls from the United supervisor to the tower, confirming that the incident had indeed been reported at the time[68]. Confronted with this evidence, the FAA acknowledged that a call had occurred but continued to downplay the event.

In early January 2007, an FAA representative finally explained the agency’s official position: they concluded that no security breach or unidentified craft had been detected, and the likely explanation was a “weather phenomenon.” Specifically, the FAA and some skeptics pointed to an odd meteorological occurrence called a “hole-punch cloud” (or fallstreak hole) to explain the reports of a circular hole in the overcast that day[70][71]. The idea was that a perfectly timed passage of a small aircraft (such as a corporate jet) through the low cloud deck could have caused ice crystals to form and precipitate, opening a round hole in the clouds that witnesses mistook for a craft punching through. “That night was a perfect atmospheric condition in terms of low cloud ceiling and a lot of airport lights,” the FAA’s Cory told the Tribune, suggesting that perhaps the employees saw an optical illusion of lights on the clouds[72]. According to her, “When the lights shine up into the clouds, sometimes you can see funny things. That’s our take on it.”[72] In short, the FAA decided not to investigate further, considering the case closed with a meteorological explanation and noting that nothing showed up on radar to warrant concern[26][5]. This quick dismissal angered many of the witnesses. Some of the United employees were reportedly “upset” that federal officials declined to further investigate the matter, feeling that their sighting was being written off without a proper inquiry[43].

In summary, neither United Airlines nor the FAA pursued a formal investigation in the immediate wake of the sighting. United’s public stance was effectively “we have no information”, and the FAA’s stance was “it was likely weather and we’re not worried about it.” However, this lack of official curiosity was later criticized by aviation and UFO investigators, especially given the location of the incident. As Chicago’s O’Hare is a high-security, high-traffic airport, the notion that an unauthorized object hovered over a gate area and then vanished—without triggering any security response—was troubling to many. One commentator, Mark Rodeghier (scientific director of the Center for UFO Studies in Chicago), pointed out the post-9/11 security implications: “It’s an unknown object over O’Hare, seen by official personnel, and does United or the FAA take it seriously? Of course not… But how can you not worry about something hovering over an airport after 9/11? It doesn’t make sense.”[73][74]. Critics argue that regardless of one’s beliefs about UFOs, an incursion into controlled airspace above an airport should be treated as a potential safety or security issue, not laughed off.

NARCAP Investigation and Findings

While official agencies chose not to investigate further, the case was actively examined by a civilian aviation-safety organization: the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena (NARCAP). NARCAP is a private research group composed of scientists and former aviation professionals that studies aviation-related UAP (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) sightings. Dr. Richard Haines, a former NASA research scientist and NARCAP’s chief scientist, led a detailed investigation into the O’Hare incident soon after it became public. In March 2007, NARCAP published a 155-page technical report on the case (Technical Report #10) titled “Report of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon and its Safety Implications at O’Hare International Airport on November 7, 2006.”[75].

This report compiled witness testimonies, analyzed radar data, and considered possible explanations, all with an eye toward aviation safety.

Key findings from the NARCAP investigation include:

• No Radar Confirmation: NARCAP obtained FAA radar data via FOIA to double-check for any unexplained targets. As the FAA had stated, no obvious radar returns coinciding with the time and location of the sighting were found[23]. This suggests the object either was too small or low to be picked up by airport surveillance radar, or it had some radar-evasive properties. (NARCAP analysts noted that a small, stationary or slow-moving object could potentially be filtered out by radar settings, and O’Hare’s radar might have blind-spots in the immediate vicinity overhead due to radar angle and “ground clutter” filtering[7][76].)
• Duration and Flight Path: Based on witness timelines, the object was present for an estimated ≈5 to 7 minutes of hovering (from roughly 4:30 to 4:35 p.m.) before its sudden departure[18][77]. When it left, it traveled straight up through the cloud layer at high speed. No horizontal movement was reported – it essentially vanished into the sky. The report highlighted that “anytime an airborne object can hover for several minutes over a busy airport but not be registered on radar or seen from the control tower, it constitutes a potential threat to flight safety.”[78][79] NARCAP stressed that this incident revealed a gap in detection: an object was essentially invisible to both radar and tower observers, yet clearly present to those on the ground.
• Cloud Hole Analysis: NARCAP gave particular attention to the “hole-in-cloud” (HIC) phenomenon reported. Investigators analyzed weather data and the dimensions of the hole. Witnesses said the hole was sharply defined, roughly the same diameter as the object, and lasted for as long as 10–15 minutes before closing[20][80]. This is unusually long-lived for a hypothesized “fallstreak hole” caused by an airplane; such holes typically remain for only a few minutes[4][80]. The report posits that if the object itself created the hole (by physically passing through the cloud or by emitting heat), it would likely have had to be extremely hot or release significant energy. Calculations suggested that on the order of 9.4 kilojoules per cubic meter of energy would be needed to evaporate the cloud moisture and leave a hole of that size[80][81]. This could indicate a “super-heated object” or perhaps one emitting a strong thermal or microwave energy field causing localized heating[80]. Such an energetic output is inconsistent with any small drone or conventional aircraft, lending weight to the idea that the cause was truly anomalous. NARCAP also noted that the hole was approximately circular and of similar diameter to the reported craft, implying the object either physically punched through or induced the aperture equal to its own size[20].
• Witness Credibility and Consistency: The NARCAP team interviewed several of the United employee witnesses confidentially. They found the witnesses to be credible and their accounts consistent on major points[82][83]. The report took steps to protect the anonymity of the employees (referring to them as Witness A, B, C, etc.) since some feared reprisals or ridicule. Notably, NARCAP addressed an Internet rumor that had circulated: an alleged witness using the alias “rampagentX” had posted a sensational story about the O’Hare UFO on a forum, but NARCAP determined this account was a likely hoax and “spurious”, not matching any known legitimate witness[84]. By comparing details, they concluded that “it is very unlikely that witness A is ‘rampagentX’” from the forum, debunking that piece of misinformation[85]. All real witnesses interviewed maintained that the event indeed happened as described and that they had nothing to gain from reporting it except improving safety[83][48].
• Historical Context: In its analysis, NARCAP pointed out that while multiple-witness daytime UFO sightings at major airports are unusual, they are not entirely unprecedented[86][87]. The report briefly cites other cases where pilots or airport personnel reported similar disc-like objects and even holes in clouds. (For example, there have been past pilot reports of disc-shaped UAP leaving cloud openings or affecting clouds, though such reports are rare.) This context was provided to show that the O’Hare incident, while extraordinary, fits a pattern of aviation-related UAP events that have been historically underreported or brushed aside. NARCAP’s broader research indicates a systemic “under-reporting bias” in aviation, where pilots and crews often choose not to report unusual aerial phenomena due to fear for their careers or ridicule[88][89]. The O’Hare case was offered as a prime example of this: numerous credible professionals saw something, yet official channels initially suppressed or ignored the reports, and only through media coverage did it come to light.
• Safety and Recommendations: The crux of NARCAP’s concern was safety. Dr. Haines stated, “We must be proactive before an aircraft goes down.”[90][91] He and his co-authors argued that UAP pose a potential aviation hazard if they can appear in busy airspace unannounced. In the O’Hare report, NARCAP concluded that an official government inquiry should be carried out to assess whether current radar and sensor systems are adequate to detect these kinds of objects, and to ensure procedures are in place to handle such an incident in the future[92][79]. They noted the apparent inability of O’Hare’s radar and tower personnel to detect the hovering object, labeling it a “potentially significant air safety problem”[78]. Among the recommendations were improving the collection of UAP reports within the aviation community and reducing stigma so that pilots or air traffic controllers can report unusual sightings without fear of ridicule or career harm[93][89]. (Earlier, in 2004, NARCAP had produced a separate report on the “under-reporting bias” of UAP in aviation and urged the FAA to establish better reporting mechanisms[75][94]. The O’Hare case gave new urgency to those recommendations.)

Overall, NARCAP’s investigation treated the O’Hare UFO sighting as a serious aviation safety incident involving an unidentified aerial object. The report stopped short of speculating on the object’s origin – it did not claim this was an “alien spacecraft” – but it emphatically documented the reality of the sighting and the fact that it “remains unidentified.” The NARCAP team was critical of the FAA’s quick dismissal. In a later statement, a NARCAP researcher remarked that the FAA’s refusal to investigate seemed at odds with its mandate: “If an object hovered over a major airport, witnessed by numerous employees and officially reported, how can it not warrant investigation? The safety implications alone should compel it.”[95]. By compiling data on this case, NARCAP hoped to encourage a change in attitude within the aviation industry about UAP reports.

It’s worth noting that NARCAP’s Technical Report 10 on the O’Hare incident was archived and made available publicly (via the NARCAP website and later the Internet Archive) so that other researchers and the public could review the evidence[75]. The thoroughness of this report has been praised by UFO researchers; even some skeptics acknowledge that the witnesses clearly saw something unusual. Critics of the NARCAP report, however, argue that it perhaps too readily dismissed the hole-punch cloud explanation. They suggest that an aircraft-induced fallstreak hole could linger longer under certain conditions and that witnesses might have perceived a structure (the supposed disc) where there was none, due to pareidolia or miscommunication. NARCAP’s team addressed this by pointing out the multiple independent and overlapping descriptions of a structured object, and the low likelihood that so many seasoned aviation observers would all identically hallucinate a metallic disc for several minutes[42][14].

Media Coverage and Public Reaction

News of the O’Hare UFO sighting did not reach the public until early January 2007, when the Chicago Tribune broke the story on New Year’s Day. Tribune transportation reporter Jon Hilkevitch published a front-page article on January 1, 2007 titled “In the sky! A bird? A plane? A … UFO?” that brought the incident to light[96][97]. Hilkevitch had learned of the case through sources in the aviation community and a report made to the National UFO Reporting Center. His article detailed the accounts of several anonymous United employees, the lack of official response, and the safety concerns the event raised[97][40]. The tone of the piece was notable for treating the subject seriously (from an aviation safety perspective) rather than dismissively. It even included quips from an air traffic controller joking about “aliens” (“To fly 7 million light years to O’Hare and then have to turn around because your gate was occupied is simply unacceptable,” one controller cracked[98]), but the overall thrust was that something unexplained had indeed happened and the witnesses felt it was being ignored unfairly[46][45].

The Tribune story immediately captured the public’s imagination. It quickly became a viral news item, aided by the internet. Within days, the O’Hare UFO story was picked up by major media outlets worldwide. CNN, CBS, MSNBC, FOX News, NPR and other mainstream networks ran segments discussing the sighting[44]. Newspapers across the country reprinted the Tribune’s account or wrote their own, and the story spread internationally via newswire services. The case had an unusual mix of elements that made it newsworthy: credible airline personnel witnesses, a major airport, physical effects (the cloud hole), and the enduring mystique of UFOs. The fact that the FAA had effectively tried to dismiss or hush it also added an element of intrigue and potential “cover-up,” which media and the public found compelling[99][100].

Online, the O’Hare UFO became a hot topic. The story climbed to the top of websites like the Drudge Report and Slashdot, driving huge traffic to the Tribune’s site[45]. Within a week, Hilkevitch’s article reportedly garnered over 1 million page views, making it one of the most-read stories in the Tribune’s history to that date[101][102]. It stayed at #1 on the paper’s “most viewed” list for days. The Tribune and Hilkevitch received hundreds of emails from readers around the world in response[103]. Many readers shared personal beliefs or experiences with UFOs, while others simply expressed fascination or outrage at the FAA’s stance. According to Hilkevitch, a recurring theme in the emails was a belief that “the government knows more … and refuses to share it”[104]. The strong public interest in this story was somewhat surprising to the Tribune staff; Hilkevitch, a veteran reporter who usually covered mundane transportation topics, found himself fielding interview requests from national and international media for weeks after. “The reaction has been unbelievable,” he said, noting he did numerous TV and radio interviews (CNN, MSNBC, NPR, BBC, etc.) in the days following the article[105][106].

Locally in Chicago, the O’Hare incident sparked both curiosity and some laughter. It became fodder for late-night talk show jokes and water-cooler conversation. Yet, importantly, the coverage remained largely respectful to the witnesses. Chicago’s WTTW (public television) aired a segment on the case in which they interviewed Hilkevitch and even famed local meteorologist Tom Skilling to discuss the weather phenomenon angle[107][108]. That WTTW piece (part of a “Chicago Mysteries” series) was aptly titled “Was a UFO once spotted at O’Hare Airport?” and concluded with the note that the case is “Unsolved.”[109]. It recapped how “more than a dozen workers saw a peculiar saucer-like object … then it shot upward leaving a noticeable hole in the clouds”, and that “neither United nor the FAA conducted an investigation” despite the FOIA evidence of the event[110][111]. Such coverage helped reinforce the idea that this was a legitimate mystery, not just a quirky news bite.

The O’Hare UFO incident has since been featured in several television programs about UFOs. The History Channel’s UFO Hunters dedicated an episode (“Aliens at the Airport,” aired February 2009) to investigating the case[112]. The case was also dramatized in shows like Hangar 1: The UFO Files and referenced in Ancient Aliens (Season 19, Episode 9: “Aliens in Our Airspace”)[113]. These shows often interview some witnesses (using anonymity or actors to reenact) and highlight the O’Hare case as one of the more credible UFO sightings due to the quality of observers. Additionally, the incident found its way into popular culture: it was joked about in an episode of the TV legal drama Boston Legal, and it inspired a subplot in a 2018 UFO-themed film simply titled UFO (where the main character investigates a mysterious airport sighting obviously modeled on O’Hare)[114].

Within the UFO research community, the O’Hare case is frequently cited as a top-tier “mass sighting” case. It stands alongside events like the 1986 Japan Air Lines flight over Alaska or the 1997 Phoenix Lights in terms of public interest, though it is unique in being at a major airport in broad daylight. Ufologists point to the O’Hare incident as evidence that even highly secure and monitored airspace can be infiltrated by unidentified objects with impunity. They also note how the case illustrates the “ridicule factor” deterring witnesses: were it not for one or two individuals leaking the story to UFO investigators and press, it might have remained buried in corporate and FAA files. In fact, the FAA’s apparent attempt to sweep the report under the rug until forced by a FOIA request has been a sticking point. The Tribune’s coverage and subsequent CJR (Columbia Journalism Review) analysis emphasized that both United and FAA only admitted knowing about the incident after journalists started asking questions, which has fueled suspicions of a cover-up (or at least a culture of minimizing UFO reports)[115][100].

Publicly, the FAA stuck to its explanation and moved on, and United Airlines essentially went silent on the matter after denying record of it. But the legacy of the O’Hare incident continued in subtle ways: in the years following, pilots and airport staff occasionally referenced it when lobbying for more open discussion of UAP sightings. The story’s high profile made it a little easier to talk about these topics without automatic ridicule. By the 2020s, with broader Pentagon and government acknowledgment of UAP issues, the O’Hare case has been revisited as an example of a credible UAP encounter that was ignored. In 2021, for instance, when the U.S. Director of National Intelligence delivered a report on military UAP encounters, some commentators in Chicago media recalled the O’Hare event and wondered if attitudes had finally changed regarding investigating such incidents.

Proposed Explanations

Weather Phenomenon (Hole-Punch Cloud Theory)

The primary conventional explanation offered for the O’Hare UFO sighting is that it was not a physical craft at all, but rather a peculiar weather phenomenon that the witnesses misinterpreted. Specifically, scientists like Dr. Mark Hammergren, an astronomer at Chicago’s Adler Planetarium, have suggested that the “UFO” might have been a hole-punch cloud (also known as a fallstreak hole)[116][117]. Hammergren explained that under certain atmospheric conditions, if an airplane passes through a stratiform cloud layer with supercooled water droplets, the disturbance can cause the droplets to freeze or evaporate, carving out a round hole in the cloud deck[118]. He noted that this can happen when temperatures are near freezing aloft: “They make liquid water droplets freeze and a hazy disc of ice crystals descends from a hole, and it looks like a perfect hole punched in the cloud.”[118]. In essence, a descending column of ice crystals can create the appearance of a circular gap. From the ground, such a hole with sunlight or clear sky above it might give an illusion of something “shooting up” or a dark object against a brighter cloud opening. The FAA echoed a version of this idea, implying that airport lights shining on a low cloud layer might have created unusual visual effects, especially if an aircraft had recently punched through the clouds[72].

Skeptics of the UFO interpretation argue that the witnesses likely saw a hole-punch cloud and mistakenly attributed it to a physical object. They point out that O’Hare’s weather that day indeed included a low cloud ceiling around 1,900 feet[21]. If, say, a small business jet climbed through that cloud layer near the airport around 4:15 p.m., it could have generated a fleeting circular clearing. Any observers who happened to catch a glimpse of that clearing might have been startled and, lacking a clear view of the aircraft that caused it, could conclude a “disc” flew up and made the hole. Additionally, optical illusions could come into play: with dense overcast and fading daylight (sunset was near 4:30 p.m.), a gap in the clouds could appear as a distinct dark circular shape from certain angles. The weather theory holds that multiple people, primed by hearing a coworker’s initial report of a “disc,” might have collectively misidentified this natural phenomenon as a structured craft.

However, many of the actual witnesses strongly reject the hole-punch cloud explanation. They insist they saw a structured, metallic object first, and only afterward did it create a hole in the clouds by departing[13][4]. The witnesses weren’t describing just a hole in the sky – they consistently described a gray, solid disc hovering for several minutes below the cloud layer. If it were merely a hole-punch cloud, it would not have been present below the clouds nor hovered in place. The hole was a consequence of the object’s departure, not the object itself, according to those on the ground. Moreover, NARCAP’s investigation noted that no aircraft were reported in that exact area at the exact time to account for a fallstreak hole[67][69]. Dr. Richard Haines checked weather records and found “no weather balloons were launched in the vicinity” at that time, and deemed it “absurd that the military would be conducting test flights” in that airspace then[119][120]. The hole-punch cloud hypothesis, while plausible on a general level, doesn’t neatly explain the silent, structured disc observed prior to the hole. It also doesn’t account for the organized manner in which the object departed (straight up at high velocity), which is unlike any weather event. Nonetheless, hole-punch clouds are a real phenomenon and did occur in the Chicago area at other times, so this theory remains the FAA’s official story and a favored angle for skeptics seeking a non-extraterrestrial explanation.

Physical Craft (Unidentified Aerial Vehicle)

Another category of explanations is that the sighting was indeed of a physical craft of unknown origin. Within that category, there are sub-theories: it could have been a secret military or government aircraft, a drone or experimental craft, or of course something not of this earth (extraterrestrial or “alien” technology). No evidence has emerged to definitively support any specific one of these, but the notion of a tangible craft is supported by the witnesses’ descriptions.

Could it have been a military black project or experimental drone? Some have speculated whether a prototype aircraft or drone might have strayed or been tested over O’Hare that day. However, experts find this highly unlikely. O’Hare’s airspace is heavily regulated; any military test in that area, unannounced, would be reckless to the extreme. As Dr. Haines remarked, “It’s absurd that the military would be conducting aerial test flights near the airport” during busy operations[120]. There was also no known military activity reported that afternoon. FOIA inquiries to nearby military installations (such as Scott Air Force Base in Illinois) turned up no indication of scrambled jets or exercises in the area at the time[121]. If it were a drone, it was unlike any publicly known drone in 2006: it hovered silently (today’s multirotor drones were not prevalent then and make noise, plus none are disc-shaped 20-foot objects capable of rapid vertical ascents). Additionally, a drone or balloon would likely have been seen drifting away or detected in some fashion; instead this object departed upwards at a speed and acceleration beyond conventional craft.

Could it have been an elaborate hoax or misidentification? A hoax seems implausible given the number of credible witnesses. It’s difficult to imagine a group of airport workers collectively fabricating a story (and risking their jobs) or an outside prankster being able to project a convincing fake “UFO” over an airport without any device being found. Misidentification of a known object (like a weather balloon, kite, or aircraft) also doesn’t fit well. A weather balloon was initially raised as a possibility by at least one United manager on the scene (“if somebody was bouncing a weather balloon…we had to stop it” he said, considering the idea)[122], but it was quickly evident to observers that the object was not a balloon. It was too flat and disc-like, too stationary in the winds, and then moved too fast straight up. Also, United contacted the National Weather Service and others – no weather balloons were in that vicinity then[119]. Some wondered if it could be a reflection (perhaps lights reflecting off the low cloud deck). But witnesses directly under the object would unlikely all be fooled by a reflection that maintained a consistent shape and position for minutes. The FAA’s comment about airport lights causing “funny things” in the clouds seemed unconvincing to those who were literally watching a solid object below the clouds[72].

That leaves the possibility often phrased as “something extraterrestrial or exotic.” The O’Hare UFO case has often been cited by UFO enthusiasts as evidence of a possible alien visitation or at least of technology far beyond our own. The classic saucer shape, the apparent anti-gravity hover and sudden acceleration, the lack of sound, and the physical effect on clouds all match many reports in UFO literature of purported alien craft. Of course, none of the witnesses saw any beings or received any confirmation of what the object was. Their reports simply document an “unidentified aerial object.” The extraterrestrial hypothesis remains speculative – it is one interpretation among others for an unexplained event. Mainstream scientists generally do not jump to this conclusion, preferring to list it as an unknown pending more evidence. However, given the data, we can say the object exhibited flight capabilities that no known aircraft in 2006 possessed, at least publicly. It hovered silently (which helicopters can do, but helicopters are noisy and obviously shaped), and it moved vertically at a speed that would challenge even advanced jets (and without any sonic boom or air disturbance). These characteristics have led some investigators to label it a true “UAP” – an unidentified aerospace phenomenon that might involve breakthroughs in propulsion or cloaking (if man-made) or, if one allows, something non-human.

Combination of Factors

Some have suggested a combination of mundane factors could be at play. For instance, could there have been a small helicopter or drone present that was mistaken for a disc due to viewing angle, and then a coincidental hole-punch cloud appeared and embellished the story? Or perhaps an odd cloud formation (like a lenticular cloud fragment or a freak ice formation) was present below the main clouds, giving the illusion of a disc until it dissipated upward? These scenarios are generally considered far-fetched, and none fit the detailed narrative well. There is no evidence of any helicopter or aircraft in that exact airspace, and witnesses would probably recognize a helicopter or gyrocopter even in silhouette. The weather that day did not produce lenticular clouds (those are associated with mountainous terrain, not flat Chicago).

Thus, after examining all known explanations, the O’Hare case remains classified as Unidentified. The official explanation (hole-punch cloud) is not satisfying to those familiar with the details, and no alternate prosaic explanation has been confirmed. The incident occupies that space of “genuine unknown” – something was observed by reliable people, it left a physical effect (cloud hole), yet it eludes identification as any conventional object or phenomenon.

Unexplained Aspects and Significance

Several aspects of the O’Hare sighting remain unexplained and continue to intrigue researchers:

• The Object’s Nature: Fundamentally, what the object was is still unknown. No craft or device was recovered or recorded. It behaved unlike any known aircraft, and thus remains a true unidentified flying object in the strict sense. Its sudden appearance and disappearance without a trace pose the question of whether it had some sort of cloaking or extraordinary propulsion technology. The lack of any debris or further sightings of it after it shot up suggests it left the area entirely (possibly into upper atmosphere or space) at great speed. This ties into broader questions in ufology about the capabilities of UAP and their origin.
• Lack of Radar Detection: One of the most puzzling aspects is that something could hover in a highly monitored airspace without triggering radar alarms. O’Hare’s radar did not see it[23]. NARCAP’s analysis considered whether radar conditions (like inversion layers or certain propagation anomalies) that day could have created a “blind spot.” Indeed, they discussed radar refractivity conditions on Nov 7, 2006 and found some potential factors that might slightly reduce radar sensitivity at low altitude[123][124]. But still, for about five minutes an object of perhaps 20+ feet across was apparently invisible to both primary (skin paint) radar and secondary (transponder) radar. If the object was metallic, one would expect some radar return unless it had stealth features. Its stationary position could mean it was filtered out as ground clutter, but if it moved suddenly upward, one might expect at least a fleeting return. The radar invisibility remains an unresolved point, raising concerns about limitations of current surveillance systems for slow or stationary objects at low altitude[7].
• Photographic Evidence: The FOIA-revealed conversation mentions “someone got a picture of it”[62]. This tantalizing clue has never been resolved publicly. No photographs have surfaced in the years since, despite the tremendous interest in the case. It’s possible that an employee did snap a photo (likely with a rudimentary 2006-era flip phone or digital camera), but if so, that evidence may have been collected by United Airlines management during their internal inquiries and never released. Alternatively, the photo might have not turned out well (e.g., just showing clouds) and thus was deemed not useful. It’s an open question: Is there a photo or video of the O’Hare UFO hidden somewhere? As of 2025, none is known to the public. This lack of photographic proof is frustrating but not surprising, given that in 2006 not everyone carried high-quality cameras in their pockets as they do today, and taking a picture of a small object against a gray sky would have been challenging. The case thus relies entirely on eyewitness testimony and corroborating circumstantial evidence (like the cloud hole and FOIA tapes).
• Witness Reactions and Aftermath: Another unexplained aspect is the human element – why did United Airlines and FAA react as they did? From the witnesses’ perspective, they encountered something extraordinary and potentially dangerous, yet they were met with laughter or silence by authorities. This speaks to the broader phenomena of the stigma around UFO reports. Many witnesses remained anonymous and some only shared their story through NARCAP or NUFORC on the promise of confidentiality[83]. Some might ask: have any of those witnesses ever come forward publicly since 2006? To date, most have not revealed their identities. We know a few first names or roles from the transcripts (e.g., the supervisor named “Sue”), but by and large they have kept a low profile. This is likely due to career concerns and the enduring taboo. The social dynamics – the fear of ridicule – is a crucial part of why this case took weeks to surface and why even afterward, few insiders wanted to go on record. It’s an unexplained aspect in the sense that one might wonder what would happen today under similar circumstances: would employees be more willing to speak, given a changing climate around UAP reports? Or would the response be the same?
• Why O’Hare, why then? There’s no known reason why a UFO would appear specifically over O’Hare Airport on that day. It raises speculative questions: was it purely coincidental? Did the object have interest in observing airliners or the airport? Or was it passing through and got seen accidentally? These questions veer into speculation about intent. Some UFO proponents might suggest it was some sort of surveillance craft (noting that O’Hare is a major transit hub and formerly one of the busiest airports in the world). Others simply chalk it up to chance – if anomalous aerial vehicles are roaming around, occasionally they might be seen at even very inconvenient places like a major airport.

From a significance standpoint, the O’Hare UFO incident underscores a few important points:

• Aviation Safety Blind Spot: The case demonstrated a gap in the aviation system’s ability (or willingness) to handle unknown aerial phenomena. As NARCAP emphasized, had the object been something malicious (like a drone with bad intent or a foreign craft), the lack of official response was alarming[7][73]. It hovered over a critical part of the airport and left undetected except by chance visual spotting. This has been cited in arguments for why UFO sightings, especially around sensitive areas like airports, need to be taken more seriously. In the years since, there have been increasing reports of drone incursions near runways, etc., which have forced authorities to adapt. The O’Hare case was ahead of its time in highlighting this issue.
• Cultural Impact: The incident added to the cultural narrative that UFOs aren’t just seen by “random people in remote areas” but also by sober professionals in broad daylight. It gave some measure of validation to the topic. Media outlets treated it with a bit more gravity than usual tabloid UFO fare, precisely because of who the witnesses were. As the CJR article noted, the Tribune framed it as “airline employees insist they are in earnest and upset that neither their bosses nor the government will take them seriously”[97][45]. This sympathetic framing might have helped nudge the UFO topic a little further into legitimacy in journalism circles.
• Open Questions: Ultimately, the O’Hare case remains an open mystery. Unlike many UFO sightings that are explained after the fact (e.g., a missile test, a rocket launch, a weather balloon, Venus, etc.), this one has no satisfying explanation on record. The official “weather” explanation is widely regarded as an inadequate catch-all. For that reason, the case is frequently listed among modern unsolved UFO encounters. It invites speculation: some feel it is a classic example of an extraterrestrial visitation right in a modern city; others see it as an example of mass misperception of a rare weather event. But until concrete evidence emerges (such as that elusive photograph, or a matching radar track found, or a whistleblower from inside some program), it stays unexplained.

Investigative efforts did slow down after 2007. Hilkevitch noted a few days after the story that he had learned of additional witnesses (beyond the initial dozen) who were out on the airfield or in nearby suburbs and saw the object[125][126]. He continued to follow leads for a while. It’s not publicly known if any new significant evidence was ever uncovered. By all accounts, the trail went cold: no new witnesses willing to publicly come forward by name, no photo, no corroborating radar or physical evidence. The incident became a case file and a talking point, rather than an ongoing investigation.

Conclusion

The 2006 Chicago O’Hare Airport UFO sighting stands as a remarkable and still unresolved incident in the annals of aviation and UFO history. In broad daylight and in a highly controlled environment, a group of seasoned airline employees observed something truly extraordinary: a silent, disc-shaped object hovering over a busy airport terminal, then disappearing at incredible speed, leaving behind only a gaping hole in the cloud cover as evidence of its presence[3][4]. The convergence of credible witnesses and a major transportation hub makes this case particularly compelling. These were not lone observers in a far-flung locale, but trained personnel accustomed to the sights and sounds of aviation – and they unanimously attested that this object was unlike anything they had seen or would expect to see in the skies.

Despite the abundance of eyewitness testimony, the response by authorities was, at least initially, characterized by denial and dismissal. United Airlines and the FAA, faced with something that arguably fell outside standard protocols, provided no meaningful investigation or explanation. The FAA’s ultimate chalking up of the sighting to a “weather phenomenon”[26][127] has convinced few who have delved into the details. In the absence of a transparent inquiry, independent researchers (notably NARCAP) took on the task and affirmed that the event had potential safety implications and deserved formal study[7][79]. Their findings supported the witnesses’ claims that an unidentified aerial phenomenon had indeed been present and the identity of the UAP remains unknown[128].

Nearly two decades later, the O’Hare UFO incident remains a potent reminder of the UFO/UAP issue’s complexity. It highlights how even in an era of radar, surveillance cameras, and cell phones, something utterly unusual can appear and vanish leaving us with more questions than answers. It also underscores the cultural and institutional hurdles that exist in confronting these occurrences – from the fear of ridicule that keeps pilots quiet, to the bureaucratic hesitance to address phenomena that don’t fit conventional explanations.

To this day, no one has come forward with a definitive answer for what was hovering over Gate C17 on November 7, 2006. Was it an alien spacecraft conducting a brief observation? An unrecognized atmospheric anomaly playing tricks on observers? A clandestine craft of earthly origin testing its capabilities? Each theory has its adherents and detractors, but no hard proof has emerged for any of them. The case remains unexplained, officially classified as “unsubstantiated” by the FAA and simply a “UAP” in the files of investigators[5][75].

Importantly, the O’Hare incident did contribute to a slowly shifting attitude: it was cited in calls for more open UAP reporting, and it foreshadowed recent acknowledgments that pilots and military personnel do encounter unrecognized objects. In a way, the legacy of O’Hare 2006 is that it helped pave the way for current discussions about UAP to be taken more seriously. Yet, for the people who were there that day – those who looked up and saw a gray disc against the cloudy Chicago sky – it will always be a profoundly personal memory. As one United mechanic said, “I know what I saw … and it was not an aircraft from this earth.”[33][49]. Until evidence proves otherwise, the Chicago O’Hare UFO sighting remains an unsolved mystery, one that continues to intrigue skeptics, believers, and aviation experts alike.

Sources / References

1. Hilkevitch, Jon. “In the sky! A bird? A plane? A … UFO?” – Chicago Tribune, January 1, 2007[97][40][14][68]. (Original news story breaking the O’Hare UFO case, featuring anonymous eyewitness accounts and official FAA/United responses.)
2. NARCAP (Haines, R.F. et al.). “Report of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon and its Safety Implications at O’Hare International Airport on November 7, 2006.” NARCAP Technical Report #10, March 2007[20][7][50][59]. (Comprehensive investigation report by the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena; includes witness testimony, FOIA transcripts, radar analysis, and safety recommendations. Archived PDF available via NARCAP and the Internet Archive.)
3. 2006 O’Hare UFO Sighting – Wikipedia (accessed 2025)[1][2][44][75]. (Summary of the incident with citations, covering the basic facts, FAA reaction, media coverage, and references to NARCAP and other sources.)
4. WTTW Chicago (Geoffrey Baer’s Chicago Mysteries). “Was a UFO once spotted at O’Hare Airport?” April 2021[107][108]. (Article and video segment recounting the O’Hare case, featuring input from Tribune reporter Jon Hilkevitch and meteorologist Tom Skilling. Confirms key details and notes the case remains unsolved.)
5. Columbia Journalism Review (Colby, Edward B.). “Chi Trib Readers Seem to Believe.” January 5, 2007[8][129][103][115]. (Analysis of the public reaction to the Chicago Tribune’s story. Describes the record web traffic, global reader response, and Hilkevitch’s media appearances after reporting the UFO sighting.)
6. All That’s Interesting (Harvey, Austin). “O’Hare UFO sighting in 2006” (Inside 11 Convincing UFO Sightings), updated Dec 2024[130][116][73]. (Retelling of the O’Hare incident, including quotes from a United mechanic witness and commentary from Mark Hammergren and Mark Rodeghier on explanations and the lack of official investigation.)
7. FAA Air Traffic Control recordings – FOIA transcripts (November 7, 2006)[131][132][55][133]. (Communications between United ramp tower and O’Hare FAA tower supervisors at ~4:30 and ~4:47 pm CST, obtained via FOIA by NARCAP. Documented the initial report of “a flying disc” and the tower’s skeptical response, as well as a later call mentioning a photo.)
8. USA Today / AP. “FAA: UFO Reports at O’Hare Not Being Investigated.” (Associated Press wire story), Jan 2007[70][127]. (Short piece quoting FAA spokeswoman Elizabeth Cory stating the sighting was likely a “weather phenomenon” and that the FAA was not pursuing it. Reflects the official conclusion at the time.)
9. National UFO Reporting Center – Case entries #53392, #53541, #54407 (Nov–Dec 2006)[134][135]. (NUFORC database reports from individuals who claimed to see a disc or odd object near O’Hare on 11/7/2006, logged in late 2006. These provided initial leads about the event and were referenced in media and Wikipedia.)
10. Kaplan, David. “Mystery Over O’Hare.” – CBS 2 Chicago News, Jan 1, 2007. (Television news segment covering the sighting with witness sound bites and FAA response. Source provides additional color from the day the story went public.)

[1] [2] [5] [9] [11] [41] [43] [44] [70] [75] [94] [95] [112] [113] [114] [127] [134] [135] 2006 O’Hare International Airport UFO sighting – Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_O%27Hare_International_Airport_UFO_sighting

[3] [10] [12] [13] [17] [22] [26] [33] [37] [38] [40] [46] [47] [96] [97] [98] [122] In the sky! A bird? A plane? A … UFO? — chicagotribune.com

https://web.archive.org/web/20071117073414/http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/columnists/chi-0701010141jan01%2C0%2C5874175.column?page=1&coll=chi-newsnationworldiraq-hed

[4] [6] [14] [16] [21] [27] [28] [34] [42] [63] [64] [65] [67] [68] [69] [72] [90] [91] [119] [120] In the sky! A bird? A plane? A … UFO? — chicagotribune.com

https://web.archive.org/web/20071023185741/http://www.chicagotribune.com/classified/automotive/columnists/chi-0701010141jan01,0,5874175.column?page=2&coll=chi-newsnationworldiraq-hed

[7] [18] [19] [20] [23] [24] [25] [29] [30] [31] [32] [35] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [66] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [92] [93] [121] [128] [131] [132] [133] – Report of an Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon and its Safety Implications at O’Hare International Airport on November 7, 2006 – Case 18

[8] [15] [45] [48] [99] [100] [101] [102] [103] [104] [105] [106] [115] [125] [126] [129] Chi Trib Readers Seem to Believe – Columbia Journalism Review

https://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/chi_trib_readers_seem_to_belie.php

[36] [39] [49] [73] [74] [116] [117] [118] [130] 11 Real UFO Sightings And The Stories Behind Them

https://allthatsinteresting.com/ufo-sightings/9

[71] [107] [108] [109] [110] [111] Was a UFO Once Spotted at O’Hare Airport? | Chicago Mysteries with Geoffrey Baer | WTTW Chicago

https://www.wttw.com/chicago-mysteries/mystery/was-a-ufo-once-spotted-at-ohare-airport

[123] [124] Microsoft Word – m1.doc

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5cf80ff422b5a90001351e31/t/5db33f31d35a623422d8010c/1572028245437/TR10_1edition.pdf

 

---

Follow The Black Vault on Social Media: