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: 36
99
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join
share:
apc

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
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...


Most people don't edit their photos in notepad..........




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

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...


I agree the second picture is the fake and someone photoshopped the cloud ufo OUT of the pic. Matter of fact I think ritzman is really 00000000000 and he's the grandfather of unarmed who is really the cybernetic creator of rampagentx..damn you see what all these damnable hoaxers and frauds have done, they convolute the whole bloody already convoluted mess!



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by MezzanineAlso, 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]


It's not my blog, and I never said it was. I check Digg everyday by searching for "UFO" and found the link, go look for yourself. I found it on Digg and posted the link here due to the similarity of the photos.

As I've said, both could be real or fake until proven otherwise. My experience with this so far is that I'll never really know if a photo is real or not unless I take a photo of something like this myself.

I enourage the mods to do whatever they need to, I am not the same person who posted the original pic and that can easily be confirmed by a moderator. I did save a copy to my desktop when I saw it last night and have tried to contribute to the analysis of the photo.
```````````````````
Trimmed quote

[edit on 24/1/07 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy

And i told you that this is just a bad excuse. IMO

Why is the TRUTH a "bad excuse"?



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 gaurentee you there's at least one program out there that creates or changes tags in digital pictures.


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

So, because your to inept to do something means everyone else ie too, right?



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...

Everyone else accepts the picture as a real one , you're the one lingering.

Why are you so adamant on prooving that picture a fake?



[edit on 24-1-2007 by Tiloke]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
We also need to figure out where the photo was taken from.


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


Not sure which photo you are referring to but if you read up a bit the origins of all the photos have already been disclosed on this page or the last.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial

Originally posted by Tiloke
We also need to figure out where the photo was taken from.


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


Not sure which photo you are referring to but if you read up a bit the origins of all the photos have already been disclosed on this page or the last.



I mean, since both pictures, if not the same, were taken from the same spot . We need to figure out where the photagrapher was standing when the picture/s were snapped.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mezzanine

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

I enourage the mods to do whatever they need to, I am not the same person who posted the original pic and that can easily be confirmed by a moderator. I did save a copy to my desktop when I saw it last night and have tried to contribute to the analysis of the photo.

admin edit: trimmed huge quote

I apologize for initially suspecting you. The MOD has given us a clue that 0000000 is hiding behind a proxy server shielding his true IP, unless YOU are also behind such a server I would find it highly unlikely that you are the same person. Furthermore, like I said in a past post, I didn't find the malaysian website to be your own or have anything to do with you despite the coincidence that its author had 'received' the UFO picture from someone else, but hey that's where a vast number of UFO pics come from anyway, from someone sending it to someone else. You have been vindicated and I thank you for attemtping to contribute to the ongoing ATS investigation.


[edit on 1-24-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke
I mean, since both pictures, if not the same, were taken from the same spot . We need to figure out where the photagrapher was standing when the picture/s were snapped.


Ah my mistake...though the obvious theory seems to be there didn't have to be "one spot" that two separate photographers happened to stand on 5 months apart (june 1, and nov 7) but rather that it's the same photograph that was taken only once and has been recently photoshopped by a hoaxer to include the UFO. As ritzman says (and I have verified by merely looking at the thing) if you look closely at the original "congestion" o'hare photo and then the ufo o'hare photo as posted by 0000000 you can clearly see some artifacts or change in the area where there were airplane lights in the sky and where in the subsequent hoaxed photo they were photoshopped out with a cloning tool that cloned the sky in order to cover them, but inadvertantly left a crude "smudge" where the fraudulous deed was done that is visible to the naked eye.
``````````````

trimmed triple nested quote

[edit on 24/1/07 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
First off I assure EVERYONE that JRitzmann is NOT "rampagentx" or "000000", give it a rest.

I am not convinced of ANYTHING relative to this image yet.

BUT...

This begs the question, IF this image is a hoax, WHY? Who is so intent on discrediting this extremely important sighting? This is one of the very FEW sightings to actually hit the mainstream news wires and get attention from all corners of the globe.

Then it goes dark for nearly two months.

*Nobody in any government agency has a comment.

*The FAA destroys tapes on a 15 day rotation, that's common knowledge but no one "thought" to get the tapes of the day/time of this incident.

The fact remains this sighting is a VERY IMPORTANT INCIDENT, it also appears to be getting the "Royal Treatment" from the deflectors.

Much to consider...

Springer...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Sheesus I was kidding about ritzman being the others etc, I guess sarcasm is a commodity around here, I'll take note of that for future reference lol.

I just wish rampagentx can come back and give us a few words about his opinion of the credibility of this photo.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   
"Why is the TRUTH a "bad excuse"?"
Who says this is the ultimate truth? you? c'mon...

"I gaurentee you there's at least one program out there that creates or changes tags in digital pictures."
You can surely name that program...right?

"Everyone else accepts the picture as a real one , you're the one lingering.

Why are you so adamant on prooving that picture a fake?"
Why should i go with the herd? i don't belong to any herd...


just read my sig.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
This begs the question, IF this image is a hoax, WHY? Who is so intent on discrediting this extremely important sighting?


That's the very question I raised in my earlier post. If this is a hoaxed photo, it may be to throw people off the trail of the real photos that may exist....



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tiloke


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


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]

admin edit trimmed huge quote

Feeling better now?
I didn't faked that pic as I've said before and I do also provided a link where I found it.
That pic looked interesting to me, that's why I've posted it. This is a discussion board about aliens and UFOs. Ok, I am sorry not to have done a search in wikedia or google, my fault.
Now you guys have found out that it was a hoax . That's good!
But is this still a reasen to get unfriendly and want me to be be banned? Relax.



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

*looks in the mirror*

[edit on 1-24-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by ultraterrestrial
I apologize for initially suspecting you. The MOD has given us a clue that 0000000 is hiding behind a proxy server shielding his true IP, unless YOU are also behind such a server I would find it highly unlikely that you are the same person. Furthermore, like I said in a past post, I didn't find the malaysian website to be your own or have anything to do with you despite the coincidence that its author had 'received' the UFO picture from someone else, but hey that's where a vast number of UFO pics come from anyway, from someone sending it to someone else. You have been vindicated and I thank you for attemtping to contribute to the ongoing ATS investigation.


Thanks, much appreciated. Just trying to help find an answer one way or the other. After hearing the CT journalist comment about a pilot having a photo in the video news feed I've been really intrigued.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
You guys smell that? Um, I wonder what it could be.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by unarmed
But is this still a reasen to get unfriendly and want me to be be banned? Relax.


You're right, you say you got that photo off that other board, I don't think it was you that hoaxed it, and not everybody does a google and wiki search to look for undoctored photos of things they may find. It was a bit harsh to call for your banning, but it was still obviously a cloud.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by apc
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...


i agree with the people who are saying this. a lot of people import their pics into adobe for resizing.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I can see someone trying to fake a picture. Someone may have just wanted to be able to pass it off.

Now we have the next person talking military and a buzz still going on inside the news media behind the scenes in Chicago. Maybe people have become very paranoid in these times. I do feel like there is some "gaming" going on in all of this.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:14 PM
link   
admin edit: trimmed huge quote

I'm going to go ahead and call your bluff on this one then tough guy. SHOW US THE EXACT URL of where you allegedly found this hoaxed photograph and we will see the date in the directory of when that picture was added, so don't try covering your trail and adding it now to a private web server of your own. Show us right now where you got that picture, the exact URL. If you are able to do this and show that it is a picture you genuinely found on google or on the net somewhere then you will have been exonerated and will receive my full apologies, but if you are unable to do this or suddenly go into hiding as I suspect you will, then only one logical conclusion can be made: you hoaxed that photograph yourself using photoshop and tried in earnest to pass it off as real.
The clock is ticking, what will you do?

[edit on 1-24-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 02:21 PM
link   
PLEASE stop posting whole quotes of previous posts.

It makes for hard reading and it unnecessarily stresses the database. Select the portion you wish to address and quote that ONLY.

Thanks...

Springer...




top topics



 
99
<< 33  34  35    37  38  39 >>

log in

join