posted on Jan, 23 2007 @ 11:10 PM
I registered here because of this thread and have been following it with great interest (have never been to this site before being linked to this
story through Rense.com).
With that said, here is my deduction of the photograph and of my knowledge:
1. It was posted anonymously by a user whose registration date for this site is January 23 (today). Most likely it is someone who works at the
airport, or someone who knows someone that works at the airport or it is the original poster rampagext's new alias since 1. he told us he wants to
stay "under the radar for a bit" so to speak and 2. he is the one that initially told us that he has heard of a photo and he will attempt to obtain
it. However for the time being let's play down this situation because we do not need to expose rampage becaues he is doing a valiant and valuable
2. The photograph seems to be very consistent to me, with the information that I have about the actual sighting.
A. The UFO in the photograph matches perfectly the physical descriptions that we have, of being oval and fuzzy looking (the quote about it being
'hard to focus on')
B. The photograph seems to match exactly the height of said UFO. It was supposedly around 1000 to 1500 ft if I can remember and from my judgement in
the photograph that is the altitude I would describe it at.
C. The SKY/WEATHER condition matches identically in the photograph to the original reports of the sky being very overcast with low clouds etc.
3. As for the elevation of the photograph here is my assumption: the most initial reports that came out said that it was a PILOT who had opened up the
plane windows and taken a picture with a cell phone cam, I remember this particular detail specifically. Thus the height from which the photograph was
taken can be explained it seems to me by the fact that it is being taken out of a plane window by a pilot.
4. The "rain drop" theory to me seems inconsistent with the shape of the UFO. In my opinion, a raindrop which is flying downwards from the sky, upon
hitting the lens would form an oval that is extended VERTICALLY in its length not horizontally as the force of impact against the lens would force it
to extend DOWNARD. How would a raindrop form a horizontally extended oval? To me that seems implausible. Furthermore, if there is a light rain or
drizzle what are the chances that only ONE perfect raindrop would have hit the lens rather than multiple ones?
5. Now for some skepticism to play devil's advocate: Why is the UFO not centered in the photograph and is so completely out of the center of the shot
as to be in the remote upper right hand corner?
6. Secondly, if someone did have access to a camera and has seen such an incredible sight as a UFO hovering over O'Hare, why would they take only one
such poor photograph? Why is there not multiple if not MANY photographs from this same source and why are there no shots of the parted clouds beneath
blue sky after the UFO had shot up through the clouds? Surely, if there is a worker with a camera watching and taking a photo of this incredible
occurrence, surely he would take multiple photos and wait until the UFO is gone for certain before being content to pack away his camera. Who would be
content to look up at a once in a lifetime sighting of a UFO, shoot one mediocre/poor quality shot and then stuff their camera into their back pocket?
Of course one possible explanation is that this photo is the tip of the iceberg OR at the least there are several others in existence (perhaps
anonymous user would like to upload the rest for us?). However, if this was the case, why are these photos being released literally MONTHS after the
initial incident?? Certainly something is off here. Perhaps the whistleblower is sort of 'testing the waters' a bit first.