Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

O'Hare Airport UFO Sighting -- UPDATE: Photos & Analysis

page: 105
93
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 01:31 AM
link   
Part two.

As stated, I am not a photoshop expert, my program is called Paintshop Pro X, and I am not very knowledgeable of how these programs work.

I took the Lonely Walk photograph and adjusted the contrast and brightness, but nothing seemed to pop out at me. Within the brightness and contrast menu of Paintshop was something called "Curves", I clicked on that and another menu popped up with a line I could grab with my mouse and drag around. By clicking on the line I could create a new point to drag. Repeated clicks made more points, and I dragged the line into a (more or less) sine wave type shape and got the following picture:

Bird



A dark V shaped spot popped out that I believe to be a bird flying through the fog. I could not see this bird like thing in the original Lonely Walk photograph, but there it was, hidden in the fog.

Also in the brightness and contrast menu was something called "Clarify" I clicked on that and a submenu popped up. I set the Clarify option to maximum (which is 20.0) and click OK. I then went back to "Curves" and "recurved" the already "curved" picture, then did another "Clarify"... I did not keep notes of what I did, but there were many "Curves" and many "Clarifies" and I did not go back and forth, sometimes I did two "Clarifies" or two "Curves" in a row before switching to the other form of enhancement.

This was the image that resulted from my experiment:

Skyline


The fog in the sky seems to have a decided arc to it, but a dark level area appeared where a skyline should be with what feels to be the appropriate amount of non dark space below it where the water front should be. The bird in flight can still be seen.

My question now becomes: Is this "skyline" an artifact of the software I used or did I manage to reveal something real that was otherwise hidden to us before? If the technique is a valid one, shouldn't we use it on all of the Chicago area pictures we can find? (this would take a group effort, there are many many pictures, and no one person would have the time to do them all and still keep their day jobs. I myself lost a nights sleep over this and cannot afford to do that again)

I feel that the evidence is out there and that it is up to us to find it.

(This is part two of a post which began on the previous page. daystrom)

[edit on 17-8-2007 by daystrom]




posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 01:57 AM
link   
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.




posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 08:48 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 17 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by daystrom
My question now becomes: Is this "skyline" an artifact of the software I used or did I manage to reveal something real that was otherwise hidden to us before?
I think that it is the result of the software and the fact that the photo used has only 16390 colours (I used PaintShopPro 6's "Count colours" option, I don't know if PaintShopPro X has that option).

That number of colours shows that the photo has not as many colours as it is "normal", I suppose that is one of those ocasions where we can see the difference between a camera (specially a digital camera) and the human eye, and that is because of the fog acting as a filter.

So, while the first part of the technique is good to enhance the area we want (in this case the sky) and the result was the "appearance" of the bird (although it was already visible, but faintly), further enhancement with such a low colour count could not give better results.

PS: Apparently the low number of colours is really a result of the fog.
The first image bellow has 43992 colours while the second has only 7521.

First image
Second image



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:40 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:42 AM
link   
ArMaP,

So you believe the "skyline" is a result of the software and not the actual Chicago skyline, correct?

The Lonely Walk photograph was taken from this location:



The photographer stated that if it wasn't so foggy, we would see the Chicago skyline and Lake Michigan in the background. This would imply a west to south west angle for the photograph from that vantage point.

Not knowing what the Chicago skyline would look like from that angle, I found this photograph of Montrose Harbor:



which appears to be a shot of the peninsula upon which the Lonely Walk photographer was standing when he took his picture. Beyond the peninsula we can see a row of trees in Lincoln Park with the Chicago skyline behind them.

I require very little imagination to "make the fit" so to speak.

If this is an effect of the software, I find it odd that the dark band of "software artifact" is in the middle of the image where one would expect the skyline to be, that it has skyline like characteristics (flat on the bottom, jagged on top) and that the taller peaks are on the right, shorter peaks are on the left (as they are in the real skyline).

Would you agree that this seems like an abnormal number of coincidences for a "software artifact" and that perhaps an Occam's Razor approach might be more prudent here?



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 02:52 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 18 2007 @ 03:39 AM
link   

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



posted on Aug, 19 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 20 2007 @ 12:14 AM
link   

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


None from the O'Hare incident surfaced, however out of that same cry for photos came a series of successive photos showing what in my opinion was the same craft, at closer proximity, in a relatively closeby area in daylight. Theyre here on ATS somewhere, and I'll try and find them on my HD but right now I cannot locate them. David Biedny and I both analyzed them and concluded they were legitimate photos of an unknown aerial object. Some of the best UFO photos of recent years actually...decent quality for cellphone pics if I recall right. I'll try and find them for you.

Here they are:






Closeup of UO in shot 4, easily the most interesting to me. It's mostly obscured by the tree.




[edit on 20-8-2007 by jritzmann]



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   
daystrom, those photos were posted on this thread.

Unfortunately, the thread slowed down until it stopped, as is common with the threads that talk about UFOs that nobody can prove as hoax.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 09:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
daystrom, those photos were posted on this thread.

Unfortunately, the thread slowed down until it stopped, as is common with the threads that talk about UFOs that nobody can prove as hoax.


Sad but true. After photos go thru the paces and seem to bear out a genuine unknown, there's not much to say or do other then say we dont know what it is and file it for the future.

This is what always kind of sets me off at people who want a photo so desperately want a photo to be "real" or an "unknown". If it's a genuine unknown, what are you going to do with that?

I mean it's an important thing, and certainly has value for future study but in the end all we can do is say we dont know what it is, *at this point in time*. Maybe such a time will come when it all fits into some UFO puzzle. Right now, all we can do is file it.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 04:22 PM
link   
"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.



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   
reply to post by daystrom
 


well of course you can seek more, thats really what youre supposed to do. But for that one shot, once the end is reached of an unknown, there's little more to do with it, for now.

No further info is available about LaSalle what we got, is all we got.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by amongus
 


Who would have scrambled a few jets? United Airlines (nor any commercial carrier I know of) does not make a practice of maintaining armed 757's or'67's on alert for scrambles to investigate bogey's (Those big round things on pylons under the wings are not AMRAM's). O'Hare is a civilian airport that has no significant tactical or strategic military presence since the ANG was moved out some years ago. Anyway, I cannot imagine a KC-135 or KC-10 going in guns blazing (the ANG unit was a mid-air refueling unit.)

But in all seriosity, I did live in the vicinity for 30 years. There is a UFO "hotspot" in Southern Wisconsin about 125 miles West by Northwest of there. I believe there is much, much more (a hunch) to this than is being disclosed. I do get very cross about the credibility damage done by "well-meaning" hoaxers or "bandwagoners" for whatever reason. "I live in Chicago and I saw it while driving down Mannheim Blvd." Unless they renamed it yesterday it is Mannheim Road. It is true I have not been back up there for nearly a year, but it takes a couple years to get a pothole fixed, so changing the name of a local artery is likely not on their to-do list.



posted on Sep, 28 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
reply to post by daystrom
 


I am impressed by your desire to seek the truth, and to find more parts of the puzzle that is the whole UFO field.

While I agree to some extent with jrritzman that damage could be done by putting forth enhanced photos, and causing people at some future point to think them real, I am sure that clear labeling of them as what they are would keep that from happening. I see no more chance for damage from such photos than from any other approach.

It seems, and I am NOT singling out jrritzman over this, that sometimes, even here, people get the attitude that the experts are to be left on a pedestel where they can research from Olympus, and we mere mortals should not quest or question.

The endeavors of the OP are as legitimate as those of anyone else, and should be encouraged. While I agree that the chance of him finding something of value is exceedingly slim with this approach, it does bear looking into if he is so inclined.

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.

OP, I look forward to hearing more about your project.



posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 12:02 AM
link   

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.



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I'm surprised that these audio files have not made front page of this thread:
ufosnw.com...



posted on Oct, 12 2007 @ 05:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Grey Basket
I'm surprised that these audio files have not made front page of this thread:
ufosnw.com...


thank you for the tapes.
Actually it was O'hare incident that brought me to Ufo things. Although I am sure most of Ufo sightings or reports fake or illusion, i still think this was a real event.





new topics

top topics



 
93
<< 102  103  104    106  107  108 >>

log in

join