Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 109
93
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Teki187
 


Next hoax please? Sorry to break your ego little boy, but I was there picking up my friend and saw the craft. There were about 50 people in the vicinity that watched it too. It looked just like the photo except it had a haze around it. Like it was surrounded by water or something. It shot straight up and punched a hole in the cloud. It took off from a complete stand still to almost disappearing. Like how you see a fly sitting one moment then it just takes off almost without you seeing it.




posted on May, 16 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Hmmm, anon poster, did you report your sighting to anyone?

The more witnesses who come forward - the better.

If you haven't already done so, then send a U2U to Springer, as any small piece of information that you have, may prove to be useful.

I'd like to see this case cracked. I'm actually amazed that it can be hidden, forgotten and buried so well by the masses...



posted on May, 16 2008 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


Interesting . Could you elaborate a little on your experience ?

It sounds very similar to another description by a past member, who also
claimed to be in a in a crowd , when they witnessed the event.

Can you be a little more specific as to your location , at the time of your sighting?

Did you notice anyone, taking pictures, in this group of 50 ?


[edit on 16-5-2008 by Jbird]



posted on May, 29 2008 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by pegasus1
 


Any lawyer, or teacher, if they are doing their job, will tell you any company or non-governmental agency can stifle your "free speech". Yoour constitutional guarantee only applies to the GOVERNMENT censuring speech, which it cannot. Many people mistakenly think that is a blanket free speech, and NO ONE can shut you up. That is wrong. Any employer can shut you up, without violating the first amendment. Again, you are only protected from the government silencing you, not anyone else.
Ron Reale
realetybytes@yahoo.com
realetybytes.townhall.com



posted on Jun, 5 2008 @ 04:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Teki187
Rain drop on the camera lens.

Next hoax please.


Indeed! Mechanic testimony, multiple if not dozens of observers, and you post on page 108 that its a rain drop. Thats page One Hundred and Eight, and you break the bad news its just a raindrop on the lens that they all spotted breaking thru the clouds..


I am rejecting your reality and submitting my own.. I deny its a raindrop based off some very elusive deductions!

[edit on 5-6-2008 by mindping]



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 02:35 AM
link   
There was a UFO that day in November. UA reported it to the Air Traffic Control Tower and they blew the report off. Once again the government covering it up. There were several employees that day that did see it. Management, non management, pilots, supervisor, ramp service employees. I did not see it myself, but did speak to an employee that did see it. Love how the government stated it was a weather balloon. Weather ballons don't shoot up through the clouds and disappear and leave a hole in the cloud with in seconds. Nice try. The UFO was above the United tower that directs aircraft from the runways to the terminal. Wasn't seen on radar as radar is only detected so many feet above ground. This aircraft was below the detection of radar.



posted on Jun, 13 2008 @ 07:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Anonymous ATS
 


I don't remember any official statement (but that may be just because I am getting old
), could you (or anyone else) point me to such a statement?

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 08:17 AM
link   
Anonymous ATS poster:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Sorry to break your ego little boy, but I was there picking up my friend and saw the craft. There were about 50 people in the vicinity that watched it too. It looked just like the photo except it had a haze around it. Like it was surrounded by water or something. It shot straight up and punched a hole in the cloud. It took off from a complete stand still to almost disappearing. Like how you see a fly sitting one moment then it just takes off almost without you seeing it.


So you saw the craft, got a good look at it, and can describe it very well.

Followed by

www.abovetopsecret.com...



There were several employees that day that did see it. Management, non management, pilots, supervisor, ramp service employees. I did not see it myself, but did speak to an employee that did see it.


So you did not see the craft, have no idea what it looks like, and cannot describe it well. But you did talk to an employee who said they saw something.

Can you describe the employee well or did you not really talk to that person either?

thank you



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   
reply to post by daystrom
 


That is the problem with the Anonymous ATS account, there is no way of knowing if the first Anonymous is the same as the second Anonymous.

The Anonymous ATS user is a good idea but with many problems.



posted on Jul, 19 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
reply to post by ArMaP
 


Appears to be two different Anon's, ArMaP.

Probably Not the 'report' you are asking for, but being related,
I thought I'd throw up the the Tower Log for that day.
(the source is in the thread somewhere, but don't ask me where.
)

Notice 22:45.





[edit on 19-7-2008 by Jbird]



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 10:06 PM
link   
hello!

one Question please answer!

When is Dan Ackroyd going to show this UFO O Hare Airport video that he says he has bought and now has.
Is it ground breaking video?
when will it be released? any time frame at all????

I just wanna see it

Pat
Canada



posted on Jul, 28 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by SkepticOverlord
 


I hope to hear more about this one. Some people just have to listen to Coast2Coast and find out about ATS. So they can post their accounts.



posted on Aug, 6 2008 @ 08:28 AM
link   
ArMaP, I do believe you are correct and that once again I am in error. My sincerest apologies to the Anonymous posters.

I have been searching for additional images for this event for over a year now. So far I have not found anything that would seem to support this story but I will keep looking.

My focus has been to search for any pictures taken at the approximate time and place of the event in the hopes that someone captured something in the background unknowingly.

Please don't give up the search people. Nothing is going to magically fall into our laps. We have to do this for ourselves.



posted on Sep, 17 2008 @ 09:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by homeskillet
im not saying it is or it isnt but im going to throw this out there.... it looks like a drop of water on the lense.


LMAO! Thats the first thing that came to my mind...I wish camera phones had high defintion on all of them. With 4 mega pixels and a 40x zoom, and an auto adjust picture...hahahahah but then again if that was a phone it would be about 2,000 per phone.



posted on Sep, 24 2008 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Hopup Dave
 



Hopup Dave, I also read that book by Paul Hill over 10 years ago and it blew me away. What I didn't realise at the time was what an advanced scientist he was and how much real experience he had working on experimental craft for decades. That's really interesting. You've got to hand it to that generation of scientists and engineers, they were willing to stick their neck out (perhaps at that time it hadn't quite evolved into the 'crank' science it's assumed to be now-although he did only publish the book after he retired). The characteristics of UFOs, especially the ionisation of air and 'cloud' effect plus lack of sound and rapid start-stop movement could not be explained by any propellant based craft or craft depending on airflow to provide lift. This is something Paul Hill figured out immediately and being an engineer he was well placed to come up with good hypotheses. While we might say it is jumping the gun to say for sure it employs a field I think it is not too presumptuous. As Paul Hill said himself, it doesn't break any laws of physics. What we simply lack is a small energy source that could create a massive energy field around such an object to control every molecule within it's reach (read Michio Ikaku's Hyperspace, energy of a star?). If my memory serves me right he proposed a way of manipulating a electromagnetic field to create the desired propulsive effect which also included rotation and ionisation of the air around it (thus emitting light, generating static effects such as may interfere with electronic starters and also interfering with the light emitted which results in the above 'cloudy' effect).

The other reason for cloudy effects could simply be a cloaking device, in fact these devices are almost certainly in the process of being employed in the latest stealth aircraft in the US (1st gen. an array of LEDs mimicing both the light reflecting from earth and also from sky above, 2nd gen. would simply bend the light ways around the whole structure). The object observed over the airport was very similar to the cloud layer around it as described by Eyewitness and in the photo online. Perhaps it's cloaking device experienced a slight error that time, realising it was visible it left quickly leaving an obvious hole in the cloud layer. And yes, advanced civilisations would have cock-ups too, it's all to do with the law of entropy (direction to disorder), meaning unless you are an omnipotent God you and your stuff is going to screw up from time to time no matter how far ahead your civilisation is!

We don't have all the answers yet but a directed field must almost certainly be involved. We have an increasing capacity to control fields such as in the LHC, surely it's simply a matter of technological evolution and concentration of power source, after that was acheived the physics have already been figured out!


[edit on 24-9-2008 by ManInAsia]

[edit on 24-9-2008 by ManInAsia]



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   
this picture could not be made from that "source image from wikipedia" because the wikipedia image is cutoof where the "hoax" is not.



posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 01:02 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 03:43 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 24 2008 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Springer:

I have politely inquired from time to time about the status of Eyewitness and I have not received a satisfactory answer from you. Can you please respond re: her health and/or provide a comprehensive update on the O'Hare UAP case?



posted on Jan, 1 2009 @ 08:37 PM
link   
I would love to hear an update and any new information that has come forth in the last few months. Anyone?






top topics



 
93
<< 106  107  108    110  111  112 >>

log in

join