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

Originally posted by Palasheea
What are the arguments in support of the UFO photo being a potential hoax as a disinformation effort?

For me the fact that this "0000000" user that posted the image hasn't posted since then and didn't leave much in the way of detailed information as to who gave him the image, when, or any other information doesn't look good.

I mean if I knew an O'hare airport employee that gave me an image of the UFO, I would have posted it here with more info than that.

I would think a disinfo agent would want to do exactly this though in order for the image to spread through the internet and other media sources. Some will think it's real, some will think it's a hoax. This creates exactly what they want which is confusion and the truth gets lost.

But I think professional analysis of the image proving it to be real or a hoax is more important for us to find out. If it is determained to be 100% fake, then we need to try to find out if it was a disinfo attempt or simply someone with too much time on their hands and gets off knowing they fooled so many people.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by classified material]

not to mention springer has said that 00000000 poster was hiding behind a proxy server.

Thanks Classified, you've brought up some very valid points. Does anybody else want to add to this?

classified material I agree but I have hope its real and hope it is. Though if its not no big deal! In my heart I know there is a real picture and even video of this! I just hope the people of the world get to see it!

Originally posted by Palasheea
What are the arguments in support of the UFO photo being a potential hoax as a disinformation effort?

I think Im responsible for this...

It was just a little odd to me that this guy showed up with this picture on the same day that he joined and left with no follow up replies. He had to have known there would have been questions about this, and if there was some disinfo going on, Im sure the plan would be to let the UFO community cannibalize itself with debate over this seeming authentic picture (if indeed it does turn out to be a fake).

The other thing that was odd to me was that this poster put the picture in the right thread and did everything properly. I realize this isnt the best cause for paranoia, but how many times have we seen new posters come aboard and not be able to post pictures that they have? And usually new people start entirely new threads about this kind of thing.

Just my two cents.

I would like to bring up a suggestion -

I've seen the talk about the original UFO picture and the angle it was taken at. It does look remarkably like the other congestion photo - but has anyone stopped to think about how the photographer of the original UFO photo was holding the cellphone?

In an excited state you might skew the camera a bit inorder to get a quick snapshot of the object. I'm just saying thats its a possibility - especially since the photo appears to be un-edited.

Taking this into account, I'm thinking that both pictures were taken from almost the same exact vantage point. This could possibly mean it is a safe area on the flight line of O'hare. Could be a parking apron, outside a hangar, the beginning of a taxi ramp.

Mezzanine, excellent point!
I was new here not too long ago and I'm still making posting mistakes.

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
first of all...your "ufo" pic is just dirt (as you said)

Yes. And there is possibility that photo of "UFO" over airport is similar.
We can't dissmiss that. We also can't dissmiss that there can be real UFO - ET spaceship. Who knows?

but i'm wondering why i can't find any camera string in the code...

If you mean my photo - it is not original photo, just resized copy.

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...

I didn't said that it is fake.
But look - if you will see, suddenly, a Batman flying over buildings (can you imagine that?), you will center you camera on Batman? Or on buildings, and a little on Batman?

It can be that photogapher just did photo and later noticed "something" there.

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?

In O'Hare UFO case disc was hovering.

c'mon...that's not a valid point and lame debunking IMO.

Not debunking.
But "just believe" is also not a valid point.

btw: the dirtpic is not similar to the oharepic

I think there at least one important similarity - photo made through the window.

Is there anyway to find out what cell phone took the picture and take a picture of something else ourself and compare it ?

Ok, here's where I am at this point:

I called my buddy David Biedny who's a literal PhotoShop God (Google him if ya want), and he and I agree there's a definite ocular distortion between the congestion shot and the UFO shot. David is of the opinion that we're looking at 2 different cameras/phones, and thats what's causing that. While I tend to see some disturbance in pixels in sky vs congestion's lights when the two images are aligned, David does not. I'm more inclined to agree with his experience and fresh eyes then my own.

David also pointed out an area of the horizon that appears to have a color in it that doesnt appear in the congestion shot. I dont know what it is, and I had not seen it. It's an orange blob we cant readily dismiss, and as David said, might be a product of ocular distortion between lenses if these arent the same shot, but two different cams. At worst, I think it might be a blur of one of the horizon lights seen in the congestion shot.

There is however, (and if you look at the dissolve shot I posted you see this) an area where 4 lights are seen on the horizon on the congestion shot. Look between the left 2 beginning lights...this area turns into an orange smear, and the trees become peaked as opposed to not being there at all. This to me suggests a paint over to remove those lights. It's really subtle, but I can really see it. The big question is how far would a person faking this go.

I also have extreme issue with the reflections on the landing cement. In both photos, they line up. This again furthers the assertation that these might be the same shot, altered. Not only would it be a stretch to me to say these 2 photos were taken by a different cam at different times (and have such a degree of alignment), but for the reflections to line up in both I cannot resolve as a "happy accident". I just doesnt make sense to me...then again I'm not on the strip looking at it in person.

I'll make note that such reflections dont have to be from water or rain...heat can do this, as well as the smoothness of the landing strip.

The yellow and white tapered background object is definitely in both shots. IF thats some sort of train, that does it for me. No train is going to be at the same spot in both. However, if it's a wall of some sort, or building, that blows that. We'll have to get panaoramic shots of the area once it's found conclusively.

Were both shots taken at the same location. No question. I think we're past that.

I have another note no one really mentioned. The UFO photo's horizon is visibly slanted. However, the UFO is perfectly leveled to the top and bottom of the photo. If you adjust the horizon to level, the ufo is slanted. Now thats not to say it couldnt BE on an angle, but I always look at it from that standpoint that IF it's being faked using the congestion shot, and angled to make it look different, then the "ship" was put in, did someone forget to level the ship with the horizon? Seems like a likely error, that we've seen before. It's a possibility to me, but we dont know the orientation of the UO at the time.

David and I also picked up a smear around the UOs left side going up around it's top, almost like a Nike swoop. Could this possibly be air or atmospheric displacement as was reported? Or could it be a sign of tampering to insert the UO?

There seems as much pro as con, which is ultimately aggravating.

I think we'll all be able to tell better when we get some shots of the possible areas I asked Pegasus for.

That said, I GOT to give my eyes a break. I'm gonna start seeing this shot in my sleep.




[edit on 24-1-2007 by jritzmann]

LOOKS LIKE THIS IMAGE IS GETTING AROUND...

www.ufocasebook.com...

I hold out all hope that this image is real. The best thing to do with most if not all UFO images as most of you know is to not jump the gun and accept it as real. I'm glad although the image is spreading around the internet, it's being labeled as "unknown" as to whether it's real or not.

But again, the fact that the source "000000" seems far beyond fishy doesn't help.

classified material it sure is. Its on AlienVideo as well!

Originally posted by Mezzanine
The other thing that was odd to me was that this poster put the picture in the right thread and did everything properly. I realize this isnt the best cause for paranoia, but how many times have we seen new posters come aboard and not be able to post pictures that they have? And usually new people start entirely new threads about this kind of thing.

Perhaps a longtime visitor who never had reason to register until they obtained the photo. I probably would have acted in a similar way had I gotten hold of the picture myself.

[edit on 24-1-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by citizen soup
Perhaps a longtime visitor who never had reason to register until they obtained the photo. I probably would have acted in a similar way had I gotten hold of the picture myself.

I could be wrong, as I said, but I still think its slightly odd...

Ive been posting here for about 6 months and I probably wouldnt have been able to post that picture without spending some time figuring it out.

What I think is really going on here is that its either a disinfo attempt (if the picture is fake) or the photo actually came from someone who posts at least semi-regularly on these boards and due tothe sensitivity of the subject, created another user name.

here's what i think:

rampagent spent a few days trying to establish his credibility, then after he seems to have done so, he mentions hearing about a pic and trying to get it from the guy who has it. in the mean time, holes are found in his story, and he comes back and says that he isnt posting anymore. a few days later, a brand new member posts a photo on the same day that he became a member. maybe i'm not the smartest guy around, but it took me a few days just to figure out how to quote....much less post pics.

so i think rampagent was carefully setting us up for a fake pic, and when he was found to be less than truthful, he or an associate of his used a new name to do it.

his reasons for doing so? no idea. does this in any way negate the story? a resounding NO.....but it does mean that we have to be very careful about letting hoaxers diminish the credibility of sightings.....especially when those hoaxers have done there homework and sound expert enough in their supposed field to convince professional air traffic controllers (wont let that happen again).

Originally posted by Mezzanine
I could be wrong, as I said, but I still think its slightly odd...

Ive been posting here for about 6 months and I probably wouldnt have been able to post that picture without spending some time figuring it out.

To be fair, the user could be active on other forums, or have a decent knowledge of forums and computers in general to figure it out quite easily. I myself frequent a couple of other forums with similar "controls," as one might call them, and so it's not terribly far-fetched that with a little observation of forum etiquette at ATS and a few minutes of observing the posting options that our friend with the picture here would've been able to make a proper post showcasing the image. I don't see any sense in ruling him out as a credible poster for his ability to post properly alone.

I'm interested to hear what the final verdict is, and/or if the poster will add further input.

How does on post an image from a hard drive ????

Diode imageshack.us...

Wake up humans! You will never find the answers that you are seeking. This is the way of things. Some UFO's are indeed ET craft from elsewhere, most are not. The occasional glimpse that we are offered serves only to perpetuate the situation to the advantage of those who control it. Most ET craft are never seen at all. All we have here is yet another barely distinguishable smudge. Why, in this current age of mass communication and media technology, is there not a plethora of definitive high-quality video footage of UFO's for all to see? Just more of the same ole same ole. Few if any of us are willing to get motivated (and off the computer) and go outside and visit the "hotspots" and utilize effective technology like infra-red or anything else better than a pathetic 0.3 MP camera phone (well that's all i had handy blah blah blah). The few serious researchers have mostly either sold-out or suffered an early demise. The rest are all a bunch of wannabees. The evidence is out there, go get it wussies, if you dare!