Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 33
93
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial

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.


With all respect I've posted this pic to CONTRIBUTE to this thread.
I don't know if it's a fake or not, ok? To me it looks pretty real.




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial
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.


Nah, I doubt anybody bought that pic, isn't even close to the same weather. I don't think he'll succeed in discrediting the other one, which to me looks pretty good.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by unarmed
With all respect I've posted this pic to CONTRIBUTE to this thread.
I don't know if it's a fake or not, ok? To me it looks pretty real.


Where'd it come from?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
Looks real to me. I don't know where it came from but it's definately a vehicle of some kind in my opinion. Very interesting photo.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I also have the non-watermarked pic. I saved it at 8:17pm on 1/23. It has the same filename. ATS must have edited the photo after that and saved it to the same name (so as to not effect the thread display pic link?). Others might have also saved it. I can put a copy on a website and post a link, if need be.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

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




First of all, it was CLOUDY the day that the O'hare ufo appeared. In this pic it's a clear day. Nice try though. . .

Secondly, when I said water droplet I didnt mean it was on the lens of the cameraphone, but on the outside of the _ But if that were even true, the water droplet on the outside would be smeared due to the intense wind at takeoff.

After all the analysis here, I believe the first pic to be the real deal. But I also see that its white towards the top, wasnt the object gray metallic?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by unarmed
With all respect I've posted this pic to CONTRIBUTE to this thread.

Where did you get it from?


Originally posted by unarmed
I don't know if it's a fake or not, ok? To me it looks pretty real.

Seriously? So you don't think your pic looks just like a cloud?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial
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 also saved the picture before it got edited, so you have no valid point here...IMO.

And without beeing biased...just because two members joined at the same day, does not mean, that they're the same person. And also does not count as real evidence that the pic is a fake (we proofed it NOT to be a hoax...both pics...the one from 0000000 and the other OT pic from sci)

[edit on 24-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:19 PM
link   
Ok I'm early in this as of yet, I just been busy with so much else...

In looking on Google Image Search for shots of O'Hare I found this shot, which shows an issue of airplane congestion on incoming flights:


You can see the image here, at this link from Google

I was looking for shots that might have been manipulated, or I thought I might come across the same vantage point by some stretch of luck.

But, I noticed it was a little strange that certain angles matched the degrees of the Ohare UFO shot, like the bend in the runway. So I overlayed them. This animation might take a couple secs to load but here's a dissolve on the two:



What I notice is there's either a slight bit of lens distortion IF they arent the same picture. OR, I just cant get them aligned right, which might be due in part to being manipulated for making it into the UFO shot. I've aligned them as best I can right now. Again, there's certain angles like the runway that line up so close it's hard to ascribe to luck in positioning. It's really, really close.

What I note is the wicked similarity of stationary objects, and the lights on the horizon area. We dont see them in the UFO shot. But, when you look back and forth between the congestion and the UFO shot, the UFO shot seems to have dark areas around where the lights *should* be. Could they be painted over? Cloned over with treeline? Seems possible to me.

This begs the question to me: If the UFO shot is overcast, and somewhat dark, and the congestion shot seems to be the same, why arent those lights on? You'd think they'd be auto-eye controlled. Maybe the exposure of the cell phone doesnt depict the light conditions, but it was 4:30, reportedly just before dark. I think those lights oughtta be on...thats just me.

Manipulated? I dunno yet. I can say the grain or noise of the UFO photo appears to be very uniform, but I cant say thats exactly out of the nature of a cell phone cam.

I try to picture someone wanting to fake this shot, and coming across this picture (congestion) and thinking that this almost looks like a UFO shot already.

Now, if it IS NOT the same picture manipulated into a UFO shot, then we're looking at a photo thats taken exceedingly close to the same position of the UFO one. We're currently looking into finding a map of the airport so we can determine if this object was indeed over the gate area as desribed. (unless someone has already done that)

Just an interesting shot I wanted to show, might be a clue. I'll keep diggin.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by phanton
Seriously? So you don't think your pic looks just like a cloud?


Yeah, it's prolly a lenticular cloud....




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
Ok I'm early in this as of yet, I just been busy with so much else...

In looking on Google Image Search for shots of O'Hare I found this shot, which shows an issue of airplane congestion on incoming flights:


You can see the image here, at this link from Google

I was looking for shots that might have been manipulated, or I thought I might come across the same vantage point by some stretch of luck.

But, I noticed it was a little strange that certain angles matched the degrees of the Ohare UFO shot, like the bend in the runway. So I overlayed them. This animation might take a couple secs to load but here's a dissolve on the two:



What I notice is there's either a slight bit of lens distortion IF they arent the same picture. OR, I just cant get them aligned right, which might be due in part to being manipulated for making it into the UFO shot. I've aligned them as best I can right now. Again, there's certain angles like the runway that line up so close it's hard to ascribe to luck in positioning. It's really, really close.

What I note is the wicked similarity of stationary objects, and the lights on the horizon area. We dont see them in the UFO shot. But, when you look back and forth between the congestion and the UFO shot, the UFO shot seems to have dark areas around where the lights *should* be. Could they be painted over? Cloned over with treeline? Seems possible to me.

This begs the question to me: If the UFO shot is overcast, and somewhat dark, and the congestion shot seems to be the same, why arent those lights on? You'd think they'd be auto-eye controlled. Maybe the exposure of the cell phone doesnt depict the light conditions, but it was 4:30, reportedly just before dark. I think those lights oughtta be on...thats just me.

Manipulated? I dunno yet. I can say the grain or noise of the UFO photo appears to be very uniform, but I cant say thats exactly out of the nature of a cell phone cam.

I try to picture someone wanting to fake this shot, and coming across this picture (congestion) and thinking that this almost looks like a UFO shot already.

Now, if it IS NOT the same picture manipulated into a UFO shot, then we're looking at a photo thats taken exceedingly close to the same position of the UFO one. We're currently looking into finding a map of the airport so we can determine if this object was indeed over the gate area as desribed. (unless someone has already done that)

Just an interesting shot I wanted to show, might be a clue. I'll keep diggin.


The pic you found is a fake...here is the code:

ÿØÿà JFIF  d d ÿì Ducky   < ÿî Adobe dÀ ÿÛ „   



   

ÿÀ  È  ÿÄ ™         !1AQaq‘"¡±ðÁÑ2áB’#ñRb‚3²ÂÒâSc$T   !1AQaq"‘Áá2RÿÚ   ? ÷]~ AÔR±Ôߊ§È¦­ƒþÄJŽ‚¢Êÿ
img168.imageshack.us...


adobe...cooooooooool *irony*...anyway nice try.

edit: it's a poor fake...look here:
img259.imageshack.us...

do you see how that one was made up? right...copy and paste


[edit on 24-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Anticipating "crazy" attention, I did watermark the image, but renamed the original.

You can still gain access to the uploaded original file here:
files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
The pic you found is a fake...here is the code:

ÿØÿà JFIF  d d ÿì Ducky   < ÿî Adobe dÀ ÿÛ „   



   

ÿÀ  È  ÿÄ ™         !1AQaq‘"¡±ðÁÑ2áB’#ñRb‚3²ÂÒâSc$T   !1AQaq"‘Áá2RÿÚ   ? ÷]~ AÔR±Ôߊ§È¦­ƒþÄJŽ‚¢Êÿ

adobe...cooooooooool *irony*...anyway nice try.


Whats fake? The airport? LOL...because there's an adobe tag doesnt mean it's "fake" as you say. Thats in there when it's sized, saved as a different format, or compressed for web use...among alot of other reasons.

Nah I dont think the congestion shot is "fake". If the incoming lights are fake, thats not the airport, nor the buildings, nor the skyline.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by unarmed
With all respect I've posted this pic to CONTRIBUTE to this thread.
I don't know if it's a fake or not, ok? To me it looks pretty real.


Where'd it come from?



www.godlikeproductions.com.../24/07&forum=1



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Whats fake? The airport? LOL...because there's an adobe tag doesnt mean it's "fake" as you say. Thats in there when it's sized, saved as a different format, or compressed for web use...among alot of other reasons.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by jritzmann]

oh c'mon man, bad excuse...really.

"no! it's no fake"


but it's funny...a picture that was not edited by some software and has no tags in the code is claimed to be a hoax? lame

reverse logic...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Cool. I was looking at Ohare pics also but couldn't find a match. Carbon's pic seems very close. After seeing a map with the runways, I still didn't realize it could be a landing view with towers in the background. I think it is the same vantage point.

Good research.


apc

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   
Just having "adobe" in the data does not denote a fake image... merely that Adobe was used to modify the photo. Probably for resizing and compression.

Certainly looks like the two pics are of the same origin. Looks like...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:41 PM
link   
So you some of you are saying that someone in the control tower took this photo of that sighting? (edit: now that I'm looking at this photo again, it looks more like it was taken from a plane)

But one would think that a control tower has a good camera on hand just in case someone needs to take a photo of a take off or landing where it's obvious that a pilot is breaking one of the rules, for example.

In fact, I can think of numerous instances when someone in a control tower would be taking photo's just to back up their claims on whatever the situation may be.

But this photo is obviously taken with a low quality camera; probably a cell phone and this does not make sense to me because like I said, a control tower would have a much, much better camera available at their finger tips to take photo's of things within their sight range for reasons stated above. Why would someone use a cellphone cam when they've already got a good camera up there to take their photo's with?

In addition to this, you would think that whomever took this photo from a control tower, would have aimed their cam directly at the object so it would be in top center area of the photo.

But instead we are seeing that object off to the side.

So maybe that object was inserted in this photo via photoshop where they were thinking about the overall composition of the photo itself and thought that the image would be more visually apealing if that object were placed off to the side instead of in the center area of the photo.

And finally, this photo is showing a very foggy day... not just an overcast -- IT'S SHOWING FOG. Not one witness who has so far come forward to describe that sighting ever said anything about it being foggy out that day at 4:30 PM.



[edit on 24-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Image sharpened intensely








top topics



 
93
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join