It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 32
99
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
AgainstSecrecy

Not what I meant. It is data values (numbers) in a table. It is a Quantization table used in constructing the image. It starts at the FF DB pair.

www.obrador.com...

a'right, i got your point now. and it is possible.




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
www.accusoft.com...(file%20formats)46.html

JPEG-JFIF

Intended Use:

Interchange of .JPG files between applications on different platforms.

that string is the Cbase Machine code represented in ASCII text standard in almost all digital images that use Accusoft compression for image portability between platforms ie camera and pc

[edit on 24-1-2007 by robertfenix]

that would once more proof that the pic is not faked but taken from a camera or cellphonecamera (as far as i understand the text on that page)

[edit on 24-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy

Originally posted by scififan
Not to hijack the thread or take things off subject, but I just found a similar photo to the object in the alleged O'hare image:

www.ywwong.com...

Direct link to photo:

www.ywwong.com...

EXIF data checks out, much better shot. Looks AMAZINGLY like the same object, no?



ÿØÿà JFIF    ÿáˆEExif II*   ’   ²   Ê      Ø   à (   1 è 2      i‡    NIKON E995 ,  ,  E995v1.6 2005:09:09 19:46:03  š‚  B ‚  J "ˆ   'ˆ  d   0210  R   f ‘   ‘  z ’
 ‚ ’  Š ’   ’  ’ 
’  ’ |’ º ” †’ ] š   0100               v £   £  
í &
2005:09:09 19:46:03 2005:09:09 19:46:03

no fake. it's from a nikon e995...nice cam.


I used the Microsoft Photo tool I posted earlier and it confirmed the camera and date. Just to clarify, you mean it isn't a fake, or you mean "no, fake" as in you think it IS a fake? (I took it to mean you don't think it is fake, but I just want to be sure.)



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by scififan
I used the Microsoft Photo tool I posted earlier and it confirmed the camera and date. Just to clarify, you mean it isn't a fake, or you mean "no, fake" as in you think it IS a fake? (I took it to mean you don't think it is fake, but I just want to be sure.)


i meant: "no, it is not a fake"

i just was to lazy to write more then two words concerning that


```````````````````````
Trimmed triple nested quote

[edit on 24/1/07 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy

i meant: "no, it is not a fake"

i just was to lazy to write more then two words concerning that


That's cool, just wanted to be sure, thanks.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by scififan
Not to hijack the thread or take things off subject, but I just found a similar photo to the object in the alleged O'hare image:

www.ywwong.com...

Direct link to photo:

www.ywwong.com...

EXIF data checks out, much better shot. Looks AMAZINGLY like the same object, no?



Oh COME ON, Get real!

Mods, I think this might actually be the same person as the original poster. Same grammer style and they both joined on the same day (I believe for the purposes of having a laugh).

Can someone compare this guys IP address with 00000's please?

EDIT:
Also, if you read this guys blog, he claims that this second picture was sent to him as well.
Now, why would people wanting to show off photos of UFOs be sending their pictures to someone who runs a crappy little blog about the Malaysian release of Windows Vista, among other completly irrevelant thing?

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Mezzanine]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mezzanine
Oh COME ON, Get real!

Mods, I think this might actually be the same person as the original poster. Same grammer style and they both joined on the same day (I believe for the purposes of having a laugh).

Can someone compare this guys IP address with 00000's please?

Oh COME ON, Get real!

We found evidence that the picture is not a hoax or manipulated. Also the other picture posted (from the nikon cam) is not hoaxed.

And why are you NOW coming out and cry for a mod? and trying to discreditate the two posters?

just wondering...you know

NfC...


[edit on 24-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Toasty

The UFO is level with the frame. The explanation for this could be that the UFO is not outside of the plane (on window, camera lens, etc).


This is photo I did through the window. At that time I noticed this "UFO" which is in reality just small piece of some kind of dirt on the window. Actually very small. But just because it was very close to camera's lenses and out of focus we got what we got:


If necessary, I can provide full resolution (3.2mpix, 1,437 KB)

Take a look at the lighter part of "UFO" at the top and darker at the bottom. For me it looks very similar as on that photo of "UFO" over, probably, O'Hare.

Also, for me is strange that photo with "UFO" over O'Hare (probably O'Hare) is not centered at "UFO". If I will notice UFO I will do photo of UFO in the centre - not in corner somewhere.
.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by sergejsh]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:36 AM
link   
Sorry guys, if it already had been posted, but this seems to be another pic of O'Hare:


ADMIN NOTICE: HOAX IMAGE



This image is a confirmed hoax: link to source image from WikiPedia

Visit the First Page Of This Thread for a complete summary of photos and eye witness accounts.


[edit on 27-1-2007 by SkepticOverlord]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by unarmed
Sorry guys, if it already had been posted, but this seems to be another pic of O'Hare:


Hmm, doesn't really look like an M&M to me, where'd that one come from?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
i find it odd the pic is taken perfectly level with the UFO but the horizon is angled. dont you think it would be oppisite...the pic taken level with the horizon and the ufo angled.....



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
New members posting new pictures. This thread has officially turned into a slop fest.

Mission Accomplished!!!

Peace



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by sergejsh

Originally posted by Toasty

The UFO is level with the frame. The explanation for this could be that the UFO is not outside of the plane (on window, camera lens, etc).


This is photo I did through the window. At that time I noticed this "UFO" which is in reality just small piece of some kind of dirt on the window. Actually very small. But just because it was very close to camera's lenses and out of focus we got what we got:


If necessary, I can provide full resolution (3.2mpix, 1,437 KB)

Take a look at the lighter part of "UFO" at the top and darker at the bottom. For me it looks very similar as on that photo of "UFO" over, probably, O'Hare.

Also, for me is strange that photo with "UFO" over O'Hare (probably O'Hare) is not centered at "UFO". If I will notice UFO I will do photo of UFO in the centre - not in corner somewhere.
.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by sergejsh]

first of all...your "ufo" pic is just dirt (as you said) but i'm wondering why i can't find any camera string in the code...

as for the "it's in the corner and not in the center...must be fake" theory: this is not a valid point. do you seriously belive, that a UFO would wait EXACTLY in the center of your view until you took a photo? i doubt that...

if i take a pic of some landscape and there's a butterfly in my view...do you seriously believe that the butterlfy waits until i got it centered? c'mon...that's not a valid point and lame debunking IMO.

btw: the dirtpic is not similar to the oharepic.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by unarmed
Sorry guys, if it already had been posted, but this seems to be another pic of O'Hare:




lol. Thats a fooking cloud!



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Wouldn't it be nice if one of the eye witnesses would view the photo and give it a ney or yea vs what they saw. This seems like a reasonable thing that could be accomplished, given one of them is still involved or interested.

Anyone from the Chicago area?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by MezzanineOh COME ON, Get real!

Mods, I think this might actually be the same person as the original poster. Same grammer style and they both joined on the same day (I believe for the purposes of having a laugh).

Can someone compare this guys IP address with 00000's please?

EDIT:
Also, if you read this guys blog, he claims that this second picture was sent to him as well.
Now, why would people wanting to show off photos of UFOs be sending their pictures to someone who runs a crappy little blog about the Malaysian release of Windows Vista, among other completly irrevelant thing?

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Mezzanine]


Hmm interesting that he does have the same join date of 1/23/07 as the poster of the new photo however I don't see how he has the same grammar style seeing as how the original poster 00000000 wrote 2 short sentences all in lower case with no punctuation (not even a period at the end) whereas scififan uses proper punctuation.

Furthermore, I'm not sure if you're insinuating that the crappy blog is his but if you are, I don't think that's the case, he seems to have "found" that picture and the blog, he didn't say it was his, furthermore the Malaysian guy in the blog doesn't seem to have a fluent grasp on English whereas scififan does.

Two things to note though:

1. scififan DOES have same joindate as 000000 which is 1/23/07
2. strangely enough, scififan claims to have 'luckily saved' the original alleged o'hare photo before the mods edited it and watermarked it (which I'm assuming was the same date if not almost instantaneously).
Maybe he "just happened" to have saved that original photo because he is the one that uploaded it, i.e. he is "00000000".

I believe that this evidence warrants a moderator to at least privately examine the two suspects' IP addresses to determine foul play.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by ultraterrestrial]


[mod edit: removed nested quote]

[edit on 1/24/2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by unarmed
Sorry guys, if it already had been posted, but this seems to be another pic of O'Hare:








Mod Note: One Line Post – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/24/2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:50 AM
link   
Perhaps these new users who are posting pictures without giving much detail or background on how they got them are disinfo agents? I mean it's possible they know that if they post fake pictures on this web site that they'll get spread all over the internet and accepted as authentic by some and hoaxes by others creating confussion.

I mean the user name is 000000. Seems fake to me. And why post the picture and then not post again?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial


You shouldn't laugh, maybe the ET's have a cloaking device that makes their craft look just like a cloud...




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial


You shouldn't laugh, maybe the ET's have a cloaking device that makes their craft look just like a cloud...



It's pretty obvious to me this guy "unarmed" is just pulling our legs with this ludicrously fake photograph , we shouldn't allow this joker to discredit the rest of the thread although he seems to be apparently trying.



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 29  30  31    33  34  35 >>

log in

join