It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 46
<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:51 AM

Originally posted by Jbird

I think it's 'lenticular' cloud , and those usually are caused by windflow
over a large feature, such as a mountain.

And wouldn't a water drop show signs of gravity and be more of teardrop shape, or at least bottom heavy?

lenticular cloud. Thats what happens when I go by my memory.
Thanks for the assist.

Your thought on the water drop was my original thought, that it would be driven in a certian direction by the wind/gravity. SO. . if this photo is real, I think we can X out all three of the possibilities I stated.

Interesting. . . .

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 01:58 AM
Well, I can tell this discussion is going to go on for a long time. (and thats good)

Its been nice checking out your forum and I'm sure I will stop by again soon but right now I've got to get some sleep. I wish you all luck on getting to the bottom of this whole thing.
Also, if you ever want to learn more about photo manipulation or just want to stop by to say hi; check out we'll be glad to help you out or answer any questions you have.



[edit on 25-1-2007 by photochopz]

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:02 AM
forgot to post this, one of the lesser know (I think) aspects.

In the green channel of the rgb image level adjusted, you can see the object isnt M&M shaped, but seems to be pointed on top. Isnt really apparent as this any other way, but you'll see it now.

Well, I thought it was interesting. It's only one of the subtle things we noticed.


posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:09 AM
Do you have a zoomed in version of the image just posted? Its pretty small and tough to make anything out.

Thanks, and nice work!

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:10 AM
Wow. I can see the extra detail...very good. I want to say for the record that I'm not convinced the pic is a hoax, there just seems to be an aura of gov't BS surrounding this whole thing. And now that I see the " UFO " in a different color spectrum, I must admit that the pic has much more credibilty with me. If any of this turns into a research project, let me know. I want on the team. I'm going to bed for now and I'm going to think about all of this. This was a good day here. G'nite all.

[edit on 1/25/07 by cosmo dag]

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:28 AM
Im going to make this short due to the fact that I have to be up for class in a few hours, and I havent gone to sleep yet, but here goes:

Operating under the possibility that this picture is a hoax, and wondering why someone would do this, I decided to see if I could make any headway into finding out who the original poster was.

I googled the username "00000000" and came up with some interesting results.

Apparently the series of 8 zeros is used in both computing and in nuclear weapons silos.

Nuclear Missles using"00000000" as their Launch Codes

apparently "00000000" in computing means "No difference" as opposed to "XXXXXXXX" which means an infinite number of changes are possible to the code.

Computing Code

Im thinking its possible if this picture came from the Government and someone edited it, whoever it was was using this number as a reference to one of these two things. A little inside joke for themselves.

As far as personal user profiles that turned up in the Google search, there was only one person with the name "00000000" This turned up on a photo hosting site called Monkey View. The profile was created just over a month ago, and there is only one picture in it. Im hoping to find a way to contact this person and see if they have any knowledge of graphic editing.

"00000000"'s MonkeyView User Profile

Also, it turns out that there are some tags on tagged under "00000000" but no usernames came up in the search. However, just for the sake of completeness:

I looked through the profiles but I didnt see anyone tagging anything with that series of numbers that seemed to have recently purchased anything that had anything to do with digital photo manipulation or UFOs.

Anyway, this is just what Ive found so far. I'll do my best to keep tracking this person down tomorrow, if at all possible. Im sure the admins have more information at their disposal than I do, but I just thought I'd do my part.


posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:41 AM
Springer, could we get the names of the experts you had analyize the photo?

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:21 AM

Originally posted by Springer
Before we all get carried away here thinking we know how easy this would be to hoax, let me tell you this:

IF it's a hoax, it is a HIGH LEVEL job PERIOD.

That being the case, (I'm NOT saying it is for certain) then we need to find out:

WHO and, most importantly, WHY...


Might we approach this from another angle?

Given the Visual Information from the photo(s) and what we know of the layout and bldg's present at O'Hare, can we establish the geographic position of the object as repesented in the disputed photo.

Then, using the visual referents in the offered photo and comparing those to known dimensions of various other objects pictured in the photos, can we establish the apparent altitude of the object based solely on the information from the photo.

At this point I want to disregard any estimates of altitude provided by the testimonies we've been provided.

Having established the altitude of the "object" shown in the disputed photo, we should then try to determine whether or not the dimensions of the object in the photo closely match the reported dimensions given in the testimonies.

My suspicion is that a "cheap hoaxer" is not going to get the dimensions correct in his/her faked photo: they'll have been "compelled" to "fudge" the size in order to produce a "more convincing" or even, more "visible" image.

On the other hand, if the image in the disputed photo macthes the reported description(s) accurately:

The object in the photo, and the photo itself are not "hoaxed", or as Springer has stated:

Some one is trying VERY hard, and spending a lot of time/money/effort to pull off a hoax, for purposes unknown, and not even "Hanging Around" to take the credit.

I think we might want to try to coax more info out of the poster several pages back by the name of "A SINCLAIR"; the info re a military presence at O'Hare that day in November might bear further investigation.

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:26 AM
Ok, so what is new? Nothing really. It's still the same pic and we still don't know if it's real or not. It's just a fuzzy dot anyways...

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:37 AM

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
I think we might want to try to coax more info out of the poster several pages back by the name of "A SINCLAIR"; the info re a military presence at O'Hare that day in November might bear further investigation.

He didnt really have a whole lot of information other than a vague feeling about and persistant rumors of a military presence.
However, if there is the possibility of a military presence at O'Hare that afternoon, that definetly does bear checking out.

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:45 AM

Originally posted by Mezzanine
Im going to make this short due to the fact that I have to be up for class in a few hours, and I havent gone to sleep yet, but here goes:

Hey dude, call it a night, im not sure, but if you in high school im sur eyou got to be at school at like 7am,, doesnt matter east coast or west, you officaly into "pushing it " territory, at leat my class isnt until 11am.

Basicly heres a few line summary:

11/07/06 - some time after the new year. event happens, the story lies low, not much attention, employees are told to be quiet and such

Some time in the new year, the story hits the drudge report, and people freak, within 24 hours, most major networks run soime form of the story

Still later in the year, an employee at the airport begins to post here, he is latter joined my a nother employee that tell shis acount.

01/23/07- the 1st picture surfaces- Aunthenticty still up in the air

some hours after that, secveral other pictures surface that are claiming to be or the sighting, these subsequent pics are quickly refuted.

01/24/07 10:15 Pm PST _ Springer goes on Coast to Coast am and gives an update, stating that there has been a picture surfaced

and now here we are...

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:26 AM
Even though I believe this photo is a hoax, I think it's a mistake to suspect government involvement with disinformation as the motive. Isn't there a CT website that's already shown some animosity towards us about this very topic? It would make more sense to me to suspect their involvement for the purpose of making ATS look gullible and foolish. And if you were going to fake a photo for that purpose, the first thing you need is a photo that you can point to as the original - one that's cataloged and dated well before the event by good old google would be ideal for that. Anyway, just a thought about a likely motive.

The photo's are almost identical except for some minor distortions that I can see, but the thing that really says "hoax" to me is that the "ufo" is in the exact approach position of a very busy runway. ALL of the witnesses said it was hovering above a terminal gate and the ATC's couldn't see the UFO from their position in the tower. There is absolutely no way the ATC tower wouldn't have a view of the runway approaches and in any major airport, the passenger terminals are a LONG way from the runways. This photo is definitely a fake.

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:38 AM
Haven't had time to read the last few pages or listen to the show, but just wanted to say kudos for an excellent discussion and analysis.

You have voted jritzmann for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 08:59 AM
Maybe its just me, but I think you guys are putting way to much into this.
The photo is a fake created by manipulation of the O'Hare congestion photo. The object is not even over concourse C. Someone mentioned the possibility that the hoaxer could have snapped a shot of his computer screen. Highly unlikely but maybe they printed the photo first and then took a snapshot with a cellphone camera. Either way, it is a fake.

The poster 0000000 used a proxy to make his post. This could be so his/her normal IP would not be recoqnized. Mr. Zero could be anyone and could be actually partaking in the debate right now. Something to keep in mind.

Why would someone do this? Since when do hoaxers need a reason. Maybe it was done to see what kind of reaction ATS would give. Who really knows.

To me, the tilt of the photo is a dead giveaway. It was tilted to try and make the photo look different from the congestion photo. It is not a picture from a cockpit or even from a passenger window. Based on the angle of the tilt, the aircraft would have to be taking off or landing. This would mean the aircraft is traveling at a high rate of speed but the lights on the ground are not streaked from movement so the photographer is stationary. The tilt is artificially created.

Now on to what Springer said about figuring out who posted the fake and why! Good luck on that one. I am of the opinion that the hoaxer is a member here at ATS. They used a proxy and created the "000000" account for the sole purpose of posting the hoax photo. Then they turn off the proxy, log in to their regular account and watch the fireworks. Probably even partaking in the discussion. But then again maybe I'm just paraniod!

This obvious fake photo is not even worth all the attention it has already received. The hoaxer is loving it!

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:27 AM
I think a whole lot of time is being spent doing what will be done by our detracters. The fact is that this sighting happened at one of the worlds busiest airports and was witnessed by alot of people. Do you think that there was only one picture taken? Don't you think that other supposed photos will come out in time? I really doubt that this, if in fact it is real, will be the only one and if thats the case the future photos will substantiate or refute this one. We should be spending time figuring out what happened that day. I spoke to some friends after making the claim that there was a significant military presence during that sighting. This was also mentioned in the Chicago Tribune approx. 1 week after the sighting. It was in an editorial column by the same writer. There are planes that were suppose to land at the time of the sightings. How many flights were kept in a holding pattern? A dilligent look into airport operations that day including people who may have witnessed the military and peolpe who may have been on flights diverted will yield a much clearer picture than CSI'ing the photo. I myself can't tell if this is actually at Ohare as airports feature similar layouts. I am simply trying to get the pulse of the atmosphere at Ohare at the moment in question. Something happened that day that I am sure of and whatever it was that people saw the military had concerns. Keep in mind that Big Brother could take any image or video that is put up on the internet and make purposeful edits that are found by experts later. I am afraid that keeping an eye on the big picture will be more important than the details which are often blurred.


posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 09:54 AM
EDIT: We still do not know with certainty if this UFO photo is real or not. My comments below are only going on the assumption that this UFO is fake, but in truth, we really do not know that for sure yet.

I definitely agree with you that Mr.Z is probably rolling over in laughter every time he logs on here watching us analyze his photo TO DEATH like we have been... well, when you think about it, it really is hilarious, you know???

I think Mr. Z 's reasons for creating that photo (if he did create it where we are going on the assumption that it's fake) and then posting it here on this board are those same reasons why those debunkers come on this board who are masquarading as 'fair skeptics' but in reality are nothing more than troublemakers who have nothing better to do than harrass everybody.

They are not interested in the topic being discussed and their only goal is to crush you. Mr. Z is like this too. He gets a perverse kick out of posting fake photo's on boards like this and of course people like him always start off with the top forum. That's all it is an nothing more.

I do not believe that he's a dis-information agent. What would be the point of some covert governmental agency faking a photo of the O'hare sighting and posting it here in this forum? I can't see any reason why they would bother with that... at all. But can someone here give me reasons why you think the government could be involved in this?

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Palasheea]

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:02 AM
ok look the picture is real, it in fact shows a real object in the air, but it is a plane on approach, they used a simple mask on the entire photo which removed the high intensity light levels, thus why the planes landing lights are gone as well as the landing "tree" lights.

They were not lights on a building, they are the approach slope light trees. I have flown out of that airport maybe 20 times in the last 8 months and even on United. I drive to the airport up 294 to 190 to get to the airport.

dirb is the right overhead picture but the location spot is way off, Jritz you have the circle on the taxi way close to the GA center when the objective field of view is south of the runway looking north/east.

count the taxi turn offs from the runway that go to the right ( this would be south) 27L /9R is the only one they would match to. It is also where Lake Ohare is located ie the mud pit.

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:16 AM
Having studied "disinformation" techniques for over 20 years, this event (while modernized) fits into the standard practice that would be employed by "someone" attempting to discredit the story of the sighting at O'Hare International Airport.

Why would "they" pick our beloved ATS as a delivery system for disinfo? Simple, a Google search on "o'hare ufo sighting" shows that ATS is the first discussion board listed in the search returns -- an easy entry point to insert confusion. If you are an agent of confusion, you look for efficiency, and here it was found.

Why would "they" make an image such as the one posted by 00000000? Simple, it must at first look convincing, then be doubtful under closer scrutiny -- how much of what you would classify as "disinformation" is exactly that -- convincing, then doubtful. And ideally, the disinfo should split the target audience into two or more camps of belief who will then argue amongst themselves, fragmenting the effort to research the real story and deflecting attention.

I also find it interesting that a few have injected comments that point fingers to existing ATS members and/or ATS itself as the source for this image. That is an exceptional "added value" to a disinformation action -- foster doubt in multiple directions.

The big question is who? We could reflexively consider "government" involvement, but it could be much less sinister -- for example, the airline or airport seeking to discredit the sighting. While we've all confirmed "government" sponsored disinformation, the reality remains that there has been far more from the private sector throughout history.

In any event, an exhilarating ride.

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:34 AM
G'Morning. With not nearly the time I had yesterday to devote to this, I just want to say that there are differences to congested and the UFO shot's "backplate" or environment if you want to call it that. There is significant ocular distortion in the UFO image as opposed to the congested shot. As much as certain objects line up, the horizon does not completely align, nor can you effectively force it to align 100%. There are also objects in the UFO photo's background that are not there in the congestion. I'm not talking about obvious things. I'm talking just enough to be significant, and not anything we can connect to manipulation.

Could they be a by-product of reshooting off a monitor or print? I dont know. Without knowing the absolute properties of the phone cam, it's pretty impossible. Biedny and I both agree that this shot was taken from a hieght that seems consistent with an airplane, and I think the shot vantage point bears out that this was taken from a sort of connecting runway, and not a building on ground.

Now hang with me on this. Looking at the distortion, we see that the runway turn closest to the shooter is aligned perfect (or as near as I can get it) where as the above area and off to the right gets progressively worse.

Take a look at the dissolve, and try and notice that.

Now, thats said, look at it from the standpoint of shooting out the window of a co-pilot seat. Aircraft windows are usually flat as far as I know, and by the look of it and the way the framing is, picture a co-pilot seated individual shooting out an angled window. Would that window be enough to coinside with the distortion (as surmising if his arm were out straight in front of him the window I'm thinking about would angle towards and away from him, he's shooting out a window that isnt parallel to his cam, it's angled away on the right, giving way to the distortion), and also possibly explain the odd angle to the ground (as if the pic was taken by someone raising for instance their right arm only and leaning forward to snap. It's worth thinking about.

Looking at the ocular distortion, and the specific channel only visible information, and we dont see this as being a simple deal. Biedny has gone over the UFO photo and has stated he sees no evidence of the "landing lights" of the congestion shot being removed. And he would definitely know. I have to defer to him on that.

And if that correct, and I have every reason to believe it is, then we're not looking at the same shot.

At the same time, there are consistencies in both that I cannot get past. I'm telling ya, that white/yellow tapered object in the lower left...if thats a train and we can prove it, this is all over. At that point it's a fake derived from the congestion shot. Or, alternatively, if it's a flipped image, same result.

But until I get control shots of that exact area, it'll be very difficult to get any further. We only have so many pixels to work with, and only so much we can see. It's truly not as simple as our replicas might imply. The face might get close, but the details show a much different photo.

Oh, someone had mentioned water on the window...if that were the case the dark area of the UO would be on top, not the bottom, Water drops are convex, and reflect like a bubbled mirror. Try it on your home windows and see. The ground will be reflected in the top (dark).

So, as far as I go, there aint much to do until I get those comparitive test shots of the area. At this point for me, inconclusive-but interesting.

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 10:45 AM
Jeff, as with anything you write, I have to read it over and over again because you load so much information into all of your posts on this board, my head is spinning everytime I try doing a quick scan of any of them LOl....

You and your friend are a lot smarter than I am. I could never analyze things of this nature because I simply do not possess the intellectual capacity to do that.

I did post earlier this morning that I was convinced that this photo was a fake...(I deleted that part of my message right after posting it) because after writing that, I then re-read some of your posts again and I knew that I really was not looking at those crucial details that definitely need further analysis so as to come to more definite conclusions about this photo.

I will be reading over everything again... but I know my limitations in this area and I'm very much looking forward to finding out more about this photo from your on-going analysis of it.

I'm learning a tremendous a lot from this whole experience! I think everybody is! Keep up the good work!

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Palasheea]

<< 43  44  45    47  48  49 >>

log in