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: 39
99
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by pegasus1
The pics are too grainy for me to say with any amount of certainty. If the object in the background is indeed one of the towers, then i can say it is in the general vicinity from where i think the photo might / could have been taken.


Pegasus1- Thanx for the info. Right now I'm literally at a standstill not knowing which runway this is, and I have it narrowed to 2 different ones.

Here's a top view of OHare, and I've circled the 2 areas.



The one titled dira.jpg (the top one shown here) is where I more or less eyed up the shots as being a possibility of where they were. The second dirb.jpg was where someone said the L shaped building was, that may or may not be the "metro train", or what appears to be a yellow and white sloped ended object on the ground. (retaining wall?)

I've shown the direction to shoot, and approximately where to stand. If of course you see these buildings that correspond with the picture posted here, shoot em...as we have to find them.

At some point during the next few days, would you be willing to snap some shots at these locations and try to frame them such as this:


That way I can try to ID the stationary buildings/treelines so we can see what area we're truly looking at in both photos. This is going to be one of the few ways we can really nail down where the shooter is, by matching up the stationary objects. I need to find these buildings. No question.

Are ya willing to do that?




[edit on 24-1-2007 by jritzmann]



Ram

posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   
Leaked broadcast footage.

I havn't followed this story - and im not gonna read 38 pages of material..
but i found this - and offcourse i don't know if you already looked at it.

but here it is..

talk behind the scenes..



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
yeh that footage has been brought up numerous times in this thread



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 06:58 PM
link   
could this explain where the pic might have possibly came from....its unedited talk among news casters about this inncident...they go on to say pics where taken from a united pilot....take a look...they talk about it at the 1:50 sec mark

the link if it dont work....

video.google.com...



Google Video Link



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I would just like to remind people that if the photo that we have been discussing for the past several pages of this thread is found the be a fake, that does not necessarily invalidate this story...it will only invalidate the photo.

www.abovetopsecret.com...


edit: to add post of overlayed pic of airport congestion

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:03 PM
link   
after watching the brodcast i posted...they say it was overcast...and a united pilot took a pic...and where it has been said the pic was taken, it makes sence a pilot took it...im thinking the pic could be legit.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Once Jr nails down where the photo was taken, and if we can determine it to be something other than the plane, I think that Jr should send it to the guy who was in charge of the story who was on the newcast, with all the information that he gathered.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:19 PM
link   
People, the EXIF data is not a guaranty that the photo was not changed, forget that idea.


Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
"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?

I have used Opanda, but there are more programs.

An hex editor can be used also, if you know what to put in the file and where.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:36 PM
link   
I just thought I'd post this information so that someone here can make sense out of it.

I took the 000000's UFO photo and I blew it up 315% (see top image with the UFO in it).

Then I too jritzmanns' airport congestion photo and blew that one up 947%.

If you notice, the UFO photo was obviously taken by a webcam or a cellphone cam. Look at the surface artifacts of that photo as this alone is a dead give away. You can't reproduce this surface effect except with a low quality cam.

Now look at the photo that jitzman found in google's images. You can see that it started out as a hi-rez photograph taken by a hi-end camera. Those white dots were added to that photo and you can see that clearly because of the very well defined pixelization around those 2 dots -- but we are not focusing on that now anyway.. just look at how different these photo's look in terms of surface artifacts. Even when jritzmanns' photo was blown up 947% you are still not getting anywhere near the surface artification that's in the UFO photo that's above it because it was not taken by a webcam or a cellphone cam -- but the UFO photo was.

The UFO photo does not appear to be tampered with. You can see very clearly that any kind of tampering on a surface like that is going show up very clearly on even casual analysis.



[edit on 24-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea

I took the 000000's UFO photo and I blew it up 315% (see top image with the UFO in it).

-snip-

Even when jitzman's photo was blown up 947% you are still not getting anywhere near the artification that's in the UFO photo that's above it.
The UFO photo looks real and does not appear to be tampered with.



AWesome! I think its a real photo! To bad no one got a video!

````````````````````
trimmed quote

[edit on 24/1/07 by masqua]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:43 PM
link   

You Will Be On Coast To Coast AM!



Springer is scheduled to appear live on Coast To Coast AM at 1:15 EST to discuss this thread and the "picture" that was posted.

There appears to be multiple angles to this image...
- potential real picture of the ufo
- potential hoax from a prankster
- potential hoax as a disinformation effort (!)

I'd like to see ATS members worth together for the next 2-3 hours to help Springer pull together the top talking points of these three (or more?) angles to this development.

Here is a prime opportunity to show the nation the awesome analysis and critical thinking skills of ATS membership... Springer plans to discuss what you are talking about in this thread.

Great job everyone... it's a good day to be on ATS.



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:45 PM
link   
SkepticOverlord are you really serious? I hope so!

Is today the day we reveal the truth?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 07:58 PM
link   
[edit on 24-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Thumbs up guys ... some of the most intelligent discussion on (possibly) one of the most serious topics this board has ever had.

I'll do some research over the next couple hours to see if I can contribute anything more than my previous post to this thread. In that one I mentioned that it was strange that the object was so defined in the picture (even with the crappy "cam phone" resolution) ... one would think that it would be even LESS distinguishable considering most of the testimonies seemed to say it was gray, cloudlike, and even "see-through."

However after seeing these multiple comparison pictures, it's really hard to tell what is and what is not an actual feature with this poor of a resolution.

One comment on photographs, exif data, and file contents when viewed in notepad. All can be faked, all can be changed. I can easily go into a file and change any header information either via a hex editor or other means to remove "adobe" from a file's contents. The addition, or lack thereof, of the word "adobe" should IN NO WAY BE A DETERMINING FACTOR IN THE HUNT FOR HOAXED PICTURES. One does not imply the other .... they are mutually exclusive.

Looking forward to more input ...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:01 PM
link   
Believe it or not I've been talking to Art Bell about this on myspace today. No wonder this has come about. I sent him the image and told him we don't know if it's real or a hoax. Let the discussion and debate begin!

Here is Art's myspace profile:

www.myspace.com...

And here is my myspace profile for kicks:

www.myspace.com...




posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:02 PM
link   
What I don't understand is how everyone with a digital image editor is an expert photo analyst. Can someone explain that to me?



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:06 PM
link   
I have been investigating the pixel blowup angle also. That is one of the first things I noticed about the ufo pic. The pixels grow real fast. I thought it might be a result of the editing/resizing. Doesn't seem to be.

Having said that, I am not so sure that the finished product isn't a copy of the altered/doctored picture in order to give it the grainy, less quality look.

Most of the objects in the picture line up perfectly after rotating the picture and adjusting the size. Some lights have been altered, some not. (from my point of view).

Even if someone was on a plane many times at the same spot (pilot on taxiway, etc) taking pics, it seems hard to believe that such an occurrance would happen. And there is the chance a passenger (the blog guy) took one of the pics.

I am still hoping it is real though...time will tell...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Postal76
What I don't understand is how everyone with a digital image editor is an expert photo analyst. Can someone explain that to me?


You bring up a good point and a very good question! I think the more questions the better. Of course the questions aren't to be mean just to understand more!

The more we understand the better we all can talk about it!



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Postal76
What I don't understand is how everyone with a digital image editor is an expert photo analyst. Can someone explain that to me?


What I don't understand is how everyone with a computer is a UFO expert


However, I happen to believe that there are members on here that are VERY talented and respected in both of those areas ...



posted on Jan, 24 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   
What are the arguments in support of the UFO photo being a potential hoax as a disinformation effort?



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 36  37  38    40  41  42 >>

log in

join