Yeufo,
In case you missed it, I did indeed edit my post on the previous page. You were quite correct to bring that to my attention. Thank you for the private message and in time I will be able to reply in kind. Until then I must clutter the board with my mistakes.

Again, thank you.

Essentially looking for pics out of Chicago on that day (for a hole or UO) are going to be pretty pointless. As the witness I spoke with said, alot of people were out with Cell phones taking pics, and if thats the case I'd wager many of them didnt save the pics they took...and they wouldnt have been able to view them very well on the cell phone. They'd see nothing (but would have seen more had they uploaded them to a computer) and delete it.

Since being mentioned in NARCAPs report along with Biedny, I got 2 emails from someone saying they had more photos, however when I said send them, I got nothing back. No reply, no nothing. Most likely just another hanger on looking for a way to send his hoax into the world.

Anyway youre certainly free to look, but I think it's going to be fruitless considering the lengths Springer has gone to in very public arenas.

jritzmann,

Thank you for your personal opinion of my pointless and fruitless endeavor.

Would you care to offer your professional opinion as an ATS Conspiracy Master and Image Specialist on my nonprofessional enhancements of the Lonely Walk photograph? Did I manage to pull a bird in flight and the Chicago skyline out of that blanket of fog?

Thank you in advance for your professional consideration.

To the board in general,

I must say that I am quiet frankly appalled by the apathy I am being confronted with by some people.

"We have done all that we can do, to do more would be pointless"

If this is to Deny Ignorance, may I ask what Embrace Ignorance would be?

Many people seem to be of the opinion that the only additional information regarding this event that we will ever obtain will come from people who are aware that they are in possession of such information.

I am of the opinion that additional information is currently available to us through people and sources who are NOT aware that they are in possession of it. We may ask them again and again for information, to please send us their pictures, and they are going to tell us again and again, in all sincerity and in all honesty that they are not aware of having anything of value.

Should we fault them for this, or rather blame ourselves for growing lax?

No line of exploration, research, or fact seeking should ever be considered beneath us or pointless.

Only time will tell if our continued labors are fruitless.

Originally posted by daystrom
jritzmann,

Thank you for your personal opinion of my pointless and fruitless endeavor.

Youre welcome. Dont be all offended, but you'll have to excuse my jadedness of the idea of looking for a needle in a hayfield. I've been on this case since it's public onset and seen firsthand the lengths Springer and others have gone to as far as trying to garner other pics and video. I've spoken to an eyewitness that said there should be LOTS of pics, but sadly none have surfaced (and thats with extreme scouring). We did have legitimate photos, in fact a series, that came out of the Chicago surrounding area that seem to be the exact same object, and we were devastating lucky to have gotten them in conjuction with that original O'Hare search and very public calls for photos.

You are talking about (I think) searching for shots that arent looking for the event or evidence of it, but rather candid and offhand possibilities of lucking out and finding it in a photo in Flikr or something.

Admirable, but extremely remote. What I see happening is you finding something you *think* might be what youre looking for, and posting it, and thereby throwing more mix into the pool that in all likelyhood wont be anything to do with the event. More likely a matrixed pixel or bird, plane etc. But then you'll have those who argue it and say, there's the hole in the clouds and there's more proof.

Before ya know it, that misidentified picture is associated with the case thru proliferation and blind association on the net. Then we got a big mess to deal with in telling people it isnt that, and so on.

I'm not saying you'd put forth anything you didnt think was good, but after a few months of searching a blurred bird is going to look like a possibility.

Now thats extrapolated to the extreme, but that is what happens ultimately. I've seen it countless times over 2 decades in the field.

Originally posted by daystrom
Would you care to offer your professional opinion as an ATS Conspiracy Master and Image Specialist on my nonprofessional enhancements of the Lonely Walk photograph? Did I manage to pull a bird in flight and the Chicago skyline out of that blanket of fog?

Nope. The bird yes, but that isnt very hard to do with an auto-level adjust thats easily see-able. In fact in a zoom scenario, I can see it without any adjusting. What you have is much larger then it should be, but thats no fault of anything other then the filter. The skyline isnt not a skyline, but is a result of pixelation by virtue of a color profile and inadvertant posterizing type artifacts by that filter.

This is essentially what I'm getting at. Alot of people want to "analyze" a photo and dont have much awareness of imaging and artifacts that come with the territory (much less the intricacies of light and shadow). I understand people want to be involved, but the people who dont understand or arent versed in imaging very well - really tend to make matters worse by putting forth stuff that is unwarranted and before ya know it someone picks it up and uses it as gospel for that particular case. (I'm not saying you've done this, just an example)

We gotta try and keep waters clean in a case like this. I was up at the onset for over 48 hours straight on ONE photo (Springer can tell ya, thats no B.S.). Biedny did the same, and we collaborated on it for another day before we could end the exam. There are still people who ernestly believe the shot I originally found that might have suugested a hoax is the basis for the UFO photo, even after showing them ocular distortions that prove it couldnt possibly be from the same camera.

Anyway...thats the kind of work that has to be done, so I hope that explains my...I dunno...my attitude towards a search in a hayfield.

It's not apathy, as my track record says I'm anything but that...it's more trying to focus energy and attention where it's going to bear out actual results we can more or less lat hands on.

But dont let me influence you not to look if you want to. You could hit the lottery, but I dont expect it....but who knows. I'd only ask you run it thru Springer before you post any "this might be" ones so we keep the pool clean. This is a really important case and ultimately there may be more to it to come.

Take Care,
~J

jritzmann,

I am not at all offend, quite the opposite in fact. Thank you for the in-depth reply. As I mentioned earlier, I am not a photographic expert. I value your professional opinion.

So the dark area that looks like a skyline, has the characteristics of a skyline, and is located where a skyline should be is in fact nothing more than a faulty enhancement process on my part.

I find this hard to believe but I have no choice but to accept your wisdom on this point.

I will of course continue my search for "accidental" photographs of the object or perhaps the effects it caused while moving through the fog/cloud cover, but will refrain from doing any more enhancements.

I wonder if you could clarify this statement for me:

"I've spoken to an eyewitness that said there should be LOTS of pics, but sadly none have surfaced (and thats with extreme scouring). We did have legitimate photos, in fact a series, that came out of the Chicago surrounding area that seem to be the exact same object, and we were devastating lucky to have gotten them in conjuction with that original O'Hare search and very public calls for photos."

"None have surfaced" and "We did have legitimate photos, in fact a series" is confusing to me.

Where might I find this series of legitimate photos?

Again thank you for your prompt and courteous reply.

To you and the board in general, if I seem abrupt or rude in my posting I would like to offer my sincerest apologies, no offense has ever been intended and I am looking forward to learning more about this event as time goes by.

Thank you.

JRitzmann,

Those images are incredible. You wouldn't happen to know the approximate time and location of where/when those shots were taken, would you?

This time/place seems to have much better weather than Chicago O'Hare did on that day, perhaps there are some candid photographs floating around where people unknowingly captured additional images of this thing.

Thanks.

"Right now, all we can do is file it."

Or we can continue our quest for the truth and seek out additional information.

According to the thread ArMaP sent me to, that photo series was taken "sometime" in August of 2006, near La Salle. Then in November of 2006 something similar was seen over O'Hare in Chicago.

There was an airshow in that general area in late August, I have yet to confirm if there were any LTA craft present at the show, but that avenue needs to be explored for the series of August photographs. There was a stealth craft at that air show, and we all know what an interesting profile those craft present (doubtful that the La Salle sighting was a stealth craft, but that should be looked into)

Between August and November there are many thousands of "candid" photographs of "mundane" subject matter for that general area alone. Perhaps someone captured additional images without knowing it.

A very large haystack to search, I agree, but we have no idea how many needles may be in that haystack.

A more precise time for the La Salle event would be very helpful if anyone has access to that information, it would help me to narrow down my search parameters.

Originally posted by NGC2736
On another idea, is there a place where radar logs can be accessed by the public? If there were, perhaps those photos that so captured the experts as being real could gain some more credibility by comparing to see if there were any reported anomolies at the general time that the photos were taken.

Finally.

So there is other data sources. A heat signature (air ripple observed on underside and evaporation of atmospheric moisture) is indicative of what I call an EFO (Experimental Flying Object). In the presence of a major airport will require transponder and IFF codes, call signs and other numbers showing up on the radar. Tracking the codes is a route that will require a security clearance, but I am confident it can be done.

Anybody up to asking the Pentagon? Bleh.