Has anyone gotten "ANY" information about those who witnessed the event being excused from their jobs? Just a thought on a direction we might be able to go to get a frustated employee to vent his/her thoughts on the event on a website?

I don't think we will ever have disclosure untill the ET's are pratically on our front lawn. Why? Well the government doesn't want to cause an uproar. Would you really want to know that there is an ET species with technology 500-1000 yrs. ahead of ours and eyeing our planet? Why of course you would want to know. I think we are ready for it...

Originally posted by amongus
Okay, lets just say for debate sake that the photo is real. Besides the UFO in question, what else could it be?

George Noory said he thought it was a blimp. Thats a joke.
Some say it could be a lenticular cloud.
Maybe a water drop on the outside of the window of the airplane (not on the lens)

Any other ideas?

[edit on 25-1-2007 by amongus]

Im bumping this so I can get it to a new audience. Thoughts? If it's not a UFO or alien craft, what else could it be?

[edit on 25-1-2007 by amongus]

I have not posted on this thread before, but have been following it from the start.
First off, I would like to congratulate everyone here in such a fine piece of investigative work, especially Jritzmann and his friend Biedny. Great analysis of the pictures.

Ok… onto my thoughts so far.

Regarding the picture.
I am sure more findings on this picture will surface in the next few days, but this should not be the sole area of investigation. Maybe it’s a ploy to divert attention while things are covered up etc or people spoken with. A delay tactic.
Maybe the journalist from the Chicago newspaper that originally broke the story would like to see it… maybe someone could email it to him. (if not done already)
Jritzmann… you seem to think that the picture was taken from the cockpit, if I am not mistaken? But how could the guy that posted the original “congestion” picture on his blog have taken his picture from the same advantage point? Maybe it was taken from a viewing area at Chicago and (you’ll have to bear with me on this point) possibly its narrow there and this is the only place to take a picture? So anyone going to said viewing area would ultimately take a similar picture? Just my thoughts on this and maybe someone close by could visit to see what viewing areas are public? If I remember rightly someone has emailed the guy with the blog so perhaps more information will be forthcoming.

In my mind these things need to be followed up with, along with contacting the airlines especially United to see if there were any delays that day from planes being “held” because of this situation.

The talk of a military presence is also something else that needs to be investigated and has been passed over a little.
After such a busy day yesterday of posting and great investigating, it is a reflection on the board members and staff here, just what can be accomplished.

I was in fact at Chicago terminal “C” on December 20th and 30th and wish I had taken the opportunity on those days to ask some questions armed with my notepad and pen… though I am sure the wife would have had a few choice words on this! Next time I will not spend my time in the quest for alcohol!

Thanks for taking the time to read my ramblings and I look forward to continued efforts to try and get to the bottom of what truly happened that day.

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
It just seems to me that the two photos match up too exactly to be just a coincidence. The photos would need to have been taken from the exact same spot.

1 - these photos maybe taken from the same position
2 - there is difference between photos: small photo have more lamps.
And I didn't find any signs of removing these lamps.

OK, time for a quick reminder that the photo posted by "000000" does not depict what was described by the witnesses.

"All the witnesses said the object was dark gray and well defined in the overcast skies. They said the craft, estimated by different accounts to be 6 feet to 24 feet in diameter, did not display any lights."

Now to me dark grey usually means dark. What do you call a light shade of Black.....Dark grey, perhaps! And the UFO was never described as being in the approach area of a runway.

A member of Open Minds forum called "theshadow" created his own animated gif to compare the congestion photo with what I officially call "the fake O'hare photo". I can't believe some of you are taking so long to come to the obvious.



Here is something to think about. If the photo had been real, what then? It is a poor photo, fake or real. It has no earth shattering significance either way. When a real photo of the O'Hare incident comes along, we will know it!!




[edit on 1/25/2007 by Jeddyhi]

Originally posted by Springer
IF this is a hoax, I have it on SOLID authority it was done at the highest levels of professionalism

I don't think so. It can be just photo of airport through the window and that's it. And later photographer noticed - oh... there is "something" in the corner... maybe it is UFO over O'Hare. But look at the focus difference between "ufo" and airport structures.

Reasons why I think it's fake:

1.) The original poster of the picture created an account, posted the pic, and hasn't posted since. On top of that, he was behind a proxy. If you assume that the poster was genuine and was simply attempting to protect himself, why didn't he say more about the person who sent him the picture, or about the picture itself, or if there are more pictures from the same person? Would this harm anyone? On the other hand, I can understand the logic of a hoaxer who creates a throwaway account, posts the picture, then sits back and revels in the chaos.

2.) I originally thought this picture could be the real deal. However, the first damning evidence came when someone pointed out that the background is at an incline relative to the camera (obviously), whereas the "UFO" is PERFECTLY aligned with the frame of reference in the picture. A bit strange, no? I don't recall any witnesses at O'Hare claiming that the object was inclined relative to the ground.

3.) The picture in question bears MORE than a striking resemblance to the "congestion" photo found by Jritzmann. The only significant differences are small, such as the presence of some "distortion." If you look at the runway, it appears slightly bent rather than straight. But this is still obviously the same background.

4.) The absence of clear evidence of photo manipulation (which I have to take other posters' word for) can be easily explained by taking a picture of a computer monitor or of a printed version with a cellphone camera. IMO, the latter is more than a likely possibility. There's no reason to suspect that this could not have been done.

5.) Lastly, even IF there is a "security camera" at the location of the picture or two people took a picture from the same spot, what are the odds that a picture with the EXACT SAME frame of reference is available on Google image search?

This is yet another hoax that will end up discrediting the UFO community. I'm still waiting for a legitimate photo of the O'Hare incident.

With the image posted by Robert Fenix, I now reluctantly lean toward a plausible explanation for two distinct pictures.


The building from whence the shot(s) were taken appears to have two, if not three stories -- explaining the elevation.

The angle is now clear, revealing the white area what appears to be exposed dirt.

Excellent find Mr. Fenix.


(typo correction)

[edit on 25-1-2007 by mister.old.school]

Great job everyone! ATS is so great. Way to go Springer!

I wish I could have stayed up to listen to you on Coast to Coast AM but I had to be to work at 4am.

Originally posted by photochopz
Of course a person trying to pull of a hoax is going to probably spend several hours making adjustments to the picture.

We are never going to reproduce the ufo pic exactly but it is very easy to take that original and make a different but just as convincing ufo pic.

Made using Photoshop and "Bevel and Emboss..." filter in 10 min - no Copy-Paste of original "object".



I think photo of airport can be real, no adjustments - just photo from the airplane.


[edit on 25-1-2007 by sergejsh]

Photo I did from my appartment - on the window drop of wather:



Looks similar?

[edit on 25-1-2007 by sergejsh]

I was just thinking this last night laying down in bed. Are cell phones even allowed in cockpits of commercial planes?

[edit on 25-1-2007 by d1k]