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

page: 107
93
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 8 2008 @ 10:03 PM
link   
I received an interesting photo today from a professional associate of mine that I'd like you to review. It was taken by a world class telescope and my associate is above any type of prank. Can you send me an email address to send it to? Perhaps via U2U? Thanks.reply to post by jritzmann
 




posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:55 AM
link   
reply to post by AFRLPT
 


Meanwhile, the rest of us are dying of curiosity. Is there some reason you can't post it? And does it have anything to do with O'Hare?

I have a Flickr group for this sort of thing if you want to post it there. Just search for "UAP" under groups.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:02 PM
link   
reply to post by disownedsky
 


Here's a link directly to that Flickr group that I administer.



posted on Jan, 9 2008 @ 09:25 PM
link   
If Ritzman thinks it of any value I will give him permission to post. I'd like his opinion first. Sorry. I'm trying to avoid the "man, he was really stupid" thing.reply to post by disownedsky
 



posted on Jan, 10 2008 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Just so ya know, I have not yet gotten the photo file.



posted on Jan, 13 2008 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Where shall I send it? I do not have enough posts for U2U.reply to post by jritzmann
 



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I'm a filmmaker and visual effects guy in Los Angeles, and have examined the O'Hare UFO image closely at hundreds of times maginification in Photoshop. The image is rife with compression artifacts, and there is no visible detail on the object itself. It's impossible to see EXACTLY what it is.

Immediately around the object is a block of pixels which appear different colors from the other pixels around it, that gives me the impression the image might have been doctored. However, the edges of the object seem to spill beyond this limited pixel area, and because the image is so low rez, this discolored area may simply be a result of compression, and not doctoring.

That said, I did notice some odd details at 800 and 1200 times magnification which warrant further discussion. I'm posting annotated version of the images here so you can draw your own conclusions.





[edit on 19-1-2008 by ovanet]

[edit on 19-1-2008 by ovanet]



posted on Jan, 19 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by ovanet
 


That IS very interesting. I've no idea what to make of it yet, but it may be a useful clue.

I wonder why we've missed that up to now?



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 05:39 AM
link   
reply to post by ovanet
 


I think it's just the result of too much compression.

If you used the image from the first post on the thread you will see that curved lines similar to those can also be seen just under the "Above Top Secret".



posted on Jan, 20 2008 @ 10:35 AM
link   
It seems to be alot of fough also,

but yeah pretty interresting that strange object on the right.

wish i were there.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ovanet
 


The effects shown in your photo enlargements and interpretation are consistent
with a "propulsion field" effect. This effect will cause a hazing of the object itself as the field would extend a distance in all directions but most predominately in the direction of directed field projection. In other words, it would be repelling against the earth's gravitational field or magnetic field. It is interesting that the downward field projection is angled - this may be a clue as to the propulsion system identification. If the photo was taken as the object hovered, then the angle of the field may point in the direction of the strongest opposing field (magnetic?).
If the object was moving, it would be my guess that it was moving in the opposite direction of the downward angle of the field projection.
But, hey, what do I know?

Hopup

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Hopup Dave]



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by ovanet
 


David Biedny and I saw this effect when examining the photo initally, David spotted it and we still dont know what exactly to make of it. Neither of us saw it as a potential sign of tampering, but rather a possible hint at atmospheric disturbance as relayed to us by witnesses.



posted on Feb, 2 2008 @ 07:57 PM
link   
reply to post by jritzmann
 


Using a "field effect" for propulsion is really the most plausible answer to UFO propulsion. There are several "fields" which could theoretically be employed.
The Propulsion Field, Force Field, Gravitational Field, and Magnetic Field.

I have seen and heard that the objects move in ways that "defy physics" but actually, this is not correct. When an object employs a field engine, the object is enveloped with the field. A field will act on every molecule within the field, just as gravity acts on each molecule of your body, pulling each molecule equally. Because of this, the occupants of the craft are not affected by the earths gravity at all, since it has been repelled. This allows the occupants to withstand what appears to be deadly maneuvers, when in actuality the occupants feel no movement at all. This field also repels the molecules of air around the vehicle (which is visible as a haze around the object to the eye and camera). This also accounts for the lack of sonic booms and overheating by air friction. the same holds true for USO's in water. This means of propulsion also allows speeds approaching the speed of light.

This why I am always suspicious of photos of UFO's that are sharp and well defined. They should be fuzzy and indistinct.

Hopup

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Hopup Dave]

[edit on 2-2-2008 by Hopup Dave]



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 


If those hypothetical fields repel the air molecules wouldn't they make a loud sound when they leave the place where they were because of the filling of the space occupied by the craft and the air molecules around it?

I think that if that was the case then the sonic booms would be even bigger than the expected because the craft is moving a volume of air bigger than itself.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


A shockwave is created by a combination of aerodynamic shape and speed in conventional aircraft. More recent aerodynamic shapes of supersonic and hypersonic aircraft are beginning to lessen and potentially eliminate the shockwave by controlling the speed of the flow of displaced air (airflow can actually be slowed to subsonic speed as it passes over the contoured fuselage). In conventional aircraft design the wings and their position relative to the airflow must also be taken into consideration.

UFO's employ a field instead of wings. This field can be shaped to accomplish the same effect as a contoured metal fuselage without the encumbrance of wings.

By extending the "shaped" field into the direction of flight the "shock" can be virtually eliminated and airflow or displacement is accomplished without increasing air molecule speed of flow to supersonic levels.

A great primer on this is "Unconventional Flying Objects a scientific analysis" by Paul R. Hill. This book is written in such a way that, even for the novice, provides an understandable solution to this enigma. And, for the professional, it includes the formulas to back up the theory.

Paul Hill was a well respected NASA scientist who had a UFO sighting in the 1950's. He was so fascinated by the speed and lack of sound, including a sonic boom that he began to research how this would be possible. The book is 412 pages.

Hope this helps.

Hopup



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 


Thanks, I understand it now.

But I would like know why do you talk about UFOs as if you were as sure about how they work as if you were the one who built them.



posted on Feb, 3 2008 @ 06:52 PM
link   
It's just deductive reasoning. If you research the witness reports there are a lot of clues in what they have observed. For instance:

Several witness have mentioned that while observing UFO's at fairly close range, they noticed the the object affected it's physical surroundings like tree branches being forced downward and whipping back up after the object moves from being directly over the tree, and grass and shrubbery being affected similarly. All this without causing dust or leaves to blow about. A field effect will accomplish that because it does not cause the air to "blow" but pushes equally against everything under it.

Also, in one instance where a policeman in his car was suddenly "bumped" by an object resulting in damage to the vehicle. The object passed over the car and as it approached from the front the windshield was pushed in (causing the glass to crack) and as the object passed behind the car, the windshield was pushed outwardly, causing more damage. This would be consistent with the effects of a "field effect".

There are many more examples too numerous to list but readily available in books and on the internet. The only means of propulsion that could accomplish this without causing a dust storm like a helicopter (or thrust from jets and rocket engines) would be a directed field engine. At least as far as I know. These things plus the other observable effects mention prior would seem to support this possibility.

Hopup

Hopup



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hopup Dave
It's just deductive reasoning.


Hopup Dave: I'd like to respectfully point out that your discussion of field effect propulsion is not based on deductive reasoning. Deductive reasoning requires a groundwork of confirmable facts. Only when you have a reliable set of facts to work with can you hope to deduce anything. You cannot begin with a dataset that includes scientifically-unverified environmental effects from unconfirmed sightings without a shred of documented physical evidence, and make deductions about how an extraordinarily-advanced alien spacecraft might function.

Let me be clear--I'm not saying that we haven't been visited.

I'm saying that the chances of a person from, say, 1800 correctly deducing the functional basis of jet engine technology-- or internal combustion-- or a toaster oven-- are pretty slim.

I think we need to take all the energy that's put toward trying to figure out alien technology and apply it to getting just one, single sighting with high-resolution still photographs and video from multiple observers. If everybody wants this so bad, then look at a big map or at the statistical data re: (the most) reliable sightings, pinpoint the highest probability area for such sightings, set up a PayPal account for donations, buy three HD camcorders and about 250 TB of hard drive, and have three people do nothing but sit and wait. All it really takes is funding and the will to do it. And given the number of interested people out there, a professionally-organized and scientifically skeptical field crew could easily attract the $$.

Just my 2 cents.

And BTW, what ever happened to eyewitness?



posted on Feb, 5 2008 @ 11:15 PM
link   
reply to post by gilgameshjones
 

My apologies, as it does seem that my post implied that I did the deductive reasoning, I actually only agree with the reasoning behind "Unconventional
Flying Objects" by Paul Hill, a former NASA scientist, Langley Research Center scientist and eyewitness to a UFO. He took his observations and those of multiple witness reports to study in depth and do the science to support his conclusions.

I too, have seen a couple of "things" that I could not identify. Therefore, my interest in such matters.

Hopup

[edit on 5-2-2008 by Hopup Dave]



posted on Feb, 6 2008 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by gilgameshjones
 


Excellent post.

I, too would like to at least know that Eyewitness is well.





new topics
top topics
 
93
<< 104  105  106    108  109  110 >>

log in

join