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

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial

Jeff please show/post WHERE you found this alleged photo. You say you randomly found it on google? Show us where rather than showing us its location on your own personal server, until then there will be suspicion that you have faked it.

edit:
i had a look at the location where he said he found the pic. this one has also the adobe tag in the code.

so he did not fake it by himself, but never the less...it has the adobe tag on it and the two pics are not the same.



[edit on 24-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]

Btw, in case ya dont wanna click the link I already provided in the original post, this is the google hit, image should be at bottom of page:Google Hit

By the way, not that I believe you have faked it, I believe this is the smoking gun and you just killed 0000000000's hoax, but what I'm saying is if you can post the original location where you found the "airport congestion" photo then you will shut up the skeptics because most likely we will be able to get some sort of date of the photo/picture or when it was posted or something on the website where you found it and most likely it is older than this thread or the incident itself.

Thus the conclusion: most likely the person known as 0000000 found said "congestion" photo and manipulated it as another poster a few posts below me has very keenly observed by tilting it slightly and blowing it up to elude us, then photoshopped in the UFO and cloned out the plane lights in the sky. Can anyone possibly blow up the original o'hare ufo pic and check the areas where the plane lights are in the "congestion" pics and see if there is any evidence of using the clone tool or other such tool to clone the sky background OVER those lights in order to delete them?

Isn't this the first mention of a "military presence" that day. Seems like that would not have been overlooked. Is the military at Ohare quite a bit?

I did see a pic of a map with an area labeled "USAF RAMP".

Ok guys, this Ritzman guy has possibly officially blown the lid on this hoax.

I have just followed his google link and by going into the directory, the photo known as o'hare congestion has the following information:

20060601-aircongestion.jpg 01-Jun-2006 16:23 6k


If Ritzman has modified this photo himself and hoaxed it to discredit the original 'o'hare' photo then he must have time traveled back to june 1 2006 in order to obtain this photo because otherwise there is no way he could have done it.

There are only TWO possibilities remaining:

1. O'Hare photo as originally posted by 0000000000 is a hoax.

2. This is a photograph taken by the same exact vantage point which is POSSIBLE.

How can two photographs separated by 5 months apart (June 1, 2006 to November 7, 2006) be taken from the same exact vantage point?

They were taken by a stationary SECURITY CAMERA.

And thus, the only explanation is that 0000000's "confidante" that sent him this photo has to be a CCTV security camera operator/monitor security guard.

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial
By the way, not that I believe you have faked it, I believe this is the smoking gun and you just killed 0000000000's hoax, but what I'm saying is if you can post the original location where you found the "airport congestion" photo then you will shut up the skeptics

You mean people who want to believe so bad they'll ignore the issues. I already posted it right above ya there. It was also in the original post.

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial
Thus the conclusion: most likely the person known as 0000000 found said "congestion" photo and manipulated it as another poster a few posts below me has very keenly observed by tilting it slightly and blowing it up to elude us, then photoshopped in the UFO and cloned out the plane lights in the sky. Can anyone possibly blow up the original o'hare ufo pic and check the areas where the plane lights are in the "congestion" pics and see if there is any evidence of using the clone tool or other such tool to clone the sky background OVER those lights in order to delete them?

I've already done that. There appears to be disurbed marks on the UFO photo where the lights would be when the UFO image is embossed 500% at a pixel hieght of 2. You all can do that and post it, look it over.

Look as Springer said, dont label this 100% yet. We dont know for sure, and I'm still working on some stuff. Lets just say it's highly, highly suspect, which is more then we had before either way.

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial
By the way, not that I believe you have faked it, I believe this is the smoking gun and you just killed 0000000000's hoax, but what I'm saying is if you can post the original location where you found the "airport congestion" photo then you will shut up the skeptics because most likely we will be able to get some sort of date of the photo/picture or when it was posted or something on the website where you found it and most likely it is older than this thread or the incident itself.

Thus the conclusion: most likely the person known as 0000000 found said "congestion" photo and manipulated it as another poster a few posts below me has very keenly observed by tilting it slightly and blowing it up to elude us, then photoshopped in the UFO and cloned out the plane lights in the sky. Can anyone possibly blow up the original o'hare ufo pic and check the areas where the plane lights are in the "congestion" pics and see if there is any evidence of using the clone tool or other such tool to clone the sky background OVER those lights in order to delete them?

if that would be true, you would find the photoshop tag in the code. that is not the case.and no i won't shut up. i'm an open mindet person, but as soon as i found the adobe tag in the code, the pic lost all credibility.

but if you all wanna believe the pic of the planelights is not a fake (i have evidence against that theory...i already posted that here) and the pic from 000000 is faked (i found no evidence for this claim) it's fine. i don't care.

if nobody can show me the congestion pic without adobe or some other tag (or some other hard and real not manipulated evidence), i won't believe this story.

Upon further rumination however, what sort of security camera at an airport looks cockeyed at the runway and the sky? Doesn't seem like a reasonable security camera placement.

Hoax probability: 85%

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial
And thus, the only explanation is that 0000000's "confidante" that sent him this photo has to be a CCTV security camera operator/monitor security guard.

My question at that point would be why is the image tilted. Security cams dont usually do angles, they are disc mounted that have horizontal or verticle axis.

And thanx for the knowledge that I cant travel back in time and plant photos. LOL

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

This is a joke right? You know your gonna get banned for that. Thats why you said "ummm, it's from a friend", or "I found this, yeah thats right."
Type "O'hare" into wikipedia, whats the second picture you see? Look familiar?

To all those asking Jr "where did you get it , you faked it untill you prove its not fake"

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you so lazy and uneducated you can't type "o'hare airport" into google and see it for yourself? Jr put a some decent work into this thread, more than anyone else has yet, and all he is getting for his help is grief. Grow up.

And yes, it's obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about camera that those were takes from the same spot. Everything in both pictures is the same exact orientaion, same height, same perspective . If you move the camera even 10 feet you would see dramatic differences. I am not saying they are the same picture, but they were both taken from the same place.


Jr, if I had any more WATS votes you'd have one.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Tiloke]

Originally posted by Tiloke

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

This is a joke right? You know your gonna get banned for that. Thats why you said "ummm, it's from a friend", or "I found this, yeah thats right."
Type "O'hare" into wikipedia, whats the second picture you see? Look familiar?

To all those asking Jr "where did you get it , you faked it untill you prove its not fake"

What the hell is wrong with you? Are you so lazy and uneducated you can't type "o'hare airport" into goolge and see it for yourself? Jr put a some decent work into this thread, more than anyone else has yet, and all he is getting for his help is grief. Grow up.

And yes, it's obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about camera that those were takes from the came spot. Everythin in both pictures is the same exact orientaion . If you move the camera even 10 feet you would see dramatic differences. I am not saying they are the same picture, but they were both taken from the same place.


Jr, if I had any more WATS votes you'd have one.

Thank you sir, good work. Ban that fool "unarmed".







[edit on 24-1-2007 by ultraterrestrial]

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
but if you all wanna believe the pic of the planelights is not a fake (i have evidence against that theory...i already posted that here) and the pic from 000000 is faked (i found no evidence for this claim) it's fine. i don't care.

if nobody can show me the congestion pic without adobe or some other tag (or some other hard and real not manipulated evidence), i won't believe this story.

We already told you the adobe tag doesnt mean anything other then it could have been sized or compressed for web use.

Because the tag doesnt exist in the UFO shot doesnt say anything one way or the other. You have no idea what program was used (in the case of the UFO shot) IF this is a faked shot.

I dont want it to be faked either, but I for one wont ignore the issues I found and presented. If youre not a "sheeple" you shouldnt either. Again, stop wanting to believe so much and desire to know.

I must say two things so far:

1. I truly am disappointed in the two hoaxers' unarmed and 000000 utterly pathetic attempts at hoax. Both photos are easily found on google Next time try making a hoax from a picture that is NOT easily located on the world's most used search engine wth a single ONE WORD STRING .

2. The adeptness and cunning of the ATS debunkers such as ritzman and co. Good job guys!

It is a misconception that a photo editor must place a tag with it's name in the "saved" jpeg image. I have lots of edited photos from paintshop that do not have tags.

EXIF tags would show the camera. It is additional stuff to and image.

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial
Thank you sir, good work. Ban that fool "unarmed".
[edit on 24-1-2007 by ultraterrestrial]

I agree.....an obvious fraud and hoax......he should be banned !! All hoaxers should be beaten with a whip !!

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial
Hoax probability: 85%

I wouldnt say it's that high yet. Lets see what more we can find out. We really need a map of the airport with labeled gates.

Originally posted by jritzmann

We already told you the adobe tag doesnt mean anything other then it could have been sized or compressed for web use.

Because the tag doesnt exist in the UFO shot doesnt say anything one way or the other. You have no idea what program was used (in the case of the UFO shot) IF this is a faked shot.

I dont want it to be faked either, but I for one wont ignore the issues I found and presented. If youre not a "sheeple" you shouldnt either. Again, stop wanting to believe so much and desire to know.

"We already told you the adobe tag doesnt mean anything other then it could have been sized or compressed for web use. "
And i told you that this is just a bad excuse. IMO

"Because the tag doesnt exist in the UFO shot doesnt say anything one way or the other. You have no idea what program was used (in the case of the UFO shot) IF this is a faked shot."
I doubt that. Ever tried to remove such a tag? no? well...try it...you'll destroy the whole picture, you won't be able to view it anymore.

I once tried to remove the tag, i destroyed my pic...so...

"I dont want it to be faked either, but I for one wont ignore the issues I found and presented. If youre not a "sheeple" you shouldnt either. Again, stop wanting to believe so much and desire to know. "
Why are you trying so hard to convince me? A normal poster would just say "ok, he has his point of view, i can't convince him to believe something else. who cares anyway" he would move on.

But not you...

what does that tell me? hm?...right!

NfC

We also need to figure out where the photo was taken from.


This post isn't a one-liner because of this sentance.

Furthermore, let me state that these "codes" found in the images don't mean squat for a really knowledgeable hoaxer. The reason I say this is because if one can easily discern the credibility of a photograph from some "codes" imbedded inside of it then there would be no such thing as photo experts and forensic experts appearing in hundreds of shows over the course of the past 20 years attempting to verify, analyze, study thousands of photos for their veracity.

If you could easily in one quick stroke condemn a photo as hoax by looking at some measley "code" imbedded into it then why would all of these shows and experts exist? One would then be able to instantaneously debunk any photograph in existence by seeing if it has photoshop tags "embedded" into it.

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial
Thank you sir, good work. Ban that fool "unarmed".

That second picture without the UFO cloud was obviously manipulated and is a fake.

Just kidding againstsecrecy, but really, I think this cat is out of the bag. It's good to be open-minded, but it really looks like a hoax now. That is not at all to say the O'hare incident was a hoax, and maybe that however many zero's person who posted it was deliberately trying to throw us off the path with a fake grainy picture that is pretty inconclusive even if the landing light photo didn't out, so people stop hunting for whatever real pics may be out there that are more convincing, just a thought...