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: 49
99
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by simon_alex0327
Which would make the UO somewhere over the bottom left of the map I have showed above?


MMmmm...yeah, bottom middle/slight left thereabouts? Yup.

Gotta run, cya all tonight.




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:56 PM
link   
I think this is a photo taken on the runway shown in the "ufo" pic. It may help to identify some of the background objects at least.

www.airliners.net...



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   


It's the exact same picture IMO,


The key phrase here is "IMO" ie "IN MY (your) OPINION".

Opinions are cool, everyone is entitled to one and all that.

But the point here is, JR is trying to get to the bottom of this, obviously there are MANY issues with this photo, and JR is trying to ADDRESS these issues.

Letting it go at the FIRST possible sign of "conclusive evidence" to it being a "modified" duplicate image would be silly.

Cover ALL angles before calling shots, thats the way things are sovled, and thats the way he's doing things.

If the world of science and technology "threw" ideas out at the "first" sign of descrepancy.....we wouldn't know HALF the stuff we do now.


and just to say, this isnt a personal "retort" to your opinion Dr Love, just adding my own to the discussion


[edit on 25-1-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
I agree, but it's exactly the same picture with a little distortion added. What are the odds????? I mean, not sure what thread page it's on but didn't he find that picture on the first page of a Google search? What are the odds??

Something's seems a little fishy here, that's all I'm saying. Jritz knows I have great respect for him so I'm not worried about a little flak coming back.

I say again, something fishy is going on here and I'll leave it at that.

Peace



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   


I say again, something fishy is going on here and I'll leave it at that.


...



As a side note: Since this is ATS; what if the pic is an inside hoax? Collaborated for the sole purpose of being debunked by the excellent 'expert' community here, furthering the prestige of ATS as a research pool?


The O'hare event happened in November right? The anon-postings started in December.




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:40 PM
link   


Wonder where concourse "C" is??


OK- I may be incorrect, but here is my take on the location.






[edit on 25-1-2007 by Lab Rat]

Oops! I screwed up on the first map- I think this one is correct.


[edit on 25-1-2007 by Lab Rat]

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Lab Rat]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Wasn't there ufos in New York prior to 911? I read that somewhere but could not find the article. Could this mean there will be a catastrophic event in Chicago?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I agree that it is "fishy".

It has impaired GREATLY the credibility of the UFO pic AND origional poster for the source.

But to cover ALL angles, we have to inclued ideas that are FOR the validity of the pic...

The MAIN one being, there MAY be an area where this pic was taken that we'll ALWAYS command these kind of similarities.

I know of several areas at Gatwick Airport where, if you took a photgraph "in a certain direction", you would be hard pushed to get an assortment of angles and/or elevations etc.

I totally agree with the idea of this photo being "fishy", with things that have come to light, but allow as much for the fact that HUNDREDS of people, staff, maybe security camera etc.) may have taken that same pic,and that pic may find its way onto the web, which has to be added to the "ODDS" as it were,after all....we're not even sure WHO took this supposed UFO shot,Pilot,taxi guy etc.

"Fishy", yes,..but not conclusive


Peace to YOU my friend, and everyone else


great sluething and discussion.

I'd LOVE to know how much "steam" this site we'll gather over the next few years...DEFFINATELY nothing else like ATS out there


[edit on 25-1-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Someone with airport/flight experience can clarify this. I concerns runway use. I suppose there are records at O'hare. For the short term though....

Do the planes use the runways for landing/takeoff based on wind?

on 6-1-06, in the late afternoon, the winds were generally ENE or NE at 5 to 7 mph.

on 11-7-06, in the late afternoon, the winds were generally W or SW at 5 to 8 mph

Higher winds speeds during the day.

My thinking is that on these two days the planes might be landing on different ends of the runways. In other words, on 6-1, they would use the 9 or 4 end,
and on 11-7, they would use the 22 or 27 end. This based on the wind during the day. Someone with more knowledge of the operations could determine if this thinking is correct or if the airport operates in this manner. Maybe using different ends doesn't happen. I bet someone one on ATS should have this knowledge.

Therefore one would think that the picture should have been taken from two different directions, not the same. One of the pictures does not fit the date in question. It also might give clues to the vantage point of the picture taker.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by simon_alex0327
Here is a map showing the location of The Hilton Hotel... seems to be close to where you are looking at jritzmann? Looking at it on Google the only place to be able to view outside would be in front of the building (marked "A") Which would make the UO somewhere over the bottom left of the map I have showed above?




Wonder where concourse "C" is??

Hi there, my name is Hector. I'm a long time lurker first time poster. Due to the importance of this incident, I have decided to join in order to contribute. I work closely with the local MUFON group in town, but I am not a member myself (lonewolf). I currently work at an US Air Force base as a flight similators tech. I can tell you that the congestion picture that is being debated depicts precisely what it looks like when airplanes are stacked when on approach. However, as to the authenticity of the photo, I'm not a photo expert, and can't help you there. What I can do is point you to some of my research findings.
I too found this map on Google, and the Hilton is in fact inside the airport. However, this map does not have a lot of detail. It's still very hard to tell. So, here you go:

This is Terminal 5 where you can see the Hilton shown in the small insert map:
www.flychicago.com...
This is the phone# at O'Hare Hilton Hotel 773-686-8000

This is Terminal 1 (Concourse C) & you can see Gate C17:
www.flychicago.com...

And two more:
www.flychicago.com...
www.flychicago.com...

Also, found the visitor's guide which has all these maps and it clearly shows the full layout of the airport including Gate C17 and the Hilton on page 4:
www.flychicago.com...

Just thought I'd help with some research. And great job so far by all of you no matter where you stand on this issue. Hope to work with you guys more in the future.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Ok, so I've tried my best to 'recreate' the picture that was originally posted in an attempt to show how easy it is to 'fake' this kind of anomaly. Remember this is a 'recreation'.



This may be a poor attempt, and someone may be able to do a much better job than me.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by phanton]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:17 PM
link   
In context, your pic is a little unclear...

Is your "recreation" of the artifact, the "BLOB" on the left of what looks like the "original" artifact....(this is what i am assuming)

if so, it doesn't (and no disrespect to your work) proove much.

The original looks "3D" to an extent, and yours look like the sort of mark you make when you press a "biscuit cutter" into pastry.

Although it has been discussed that the image is minipulated by a "skilled" person (if at all), i dont think it prooves much as most people are aware that you can make a "blob" on a picture.
(edited to say: that wasn't meant as a disrespect to your efforts
)

What WOULD be more interesting, is if you tried REALLY hard to cover your tracks, making a GOOD replica, and then have someone (like JR for example) pull it apart to....

And THEN compair the ANOMALIES in the original to the "replica".


IN FACT.

Maybe EVERYONE who cares to try, should attempt a replica and attempt to pull it apart, to see if the "discrepencies" mach up...

just an idea


[edit on 25-1-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
Do the planes use the runways for landing/takeoff based on wind?


Exactly


Most if not all airports will have a normal runway and pattern, used when wind is not a factor.

The runways can change all day long with the wind. Some airports which don't have multiple runways, are often closed or limited too certain aircraft and skilled pilots, due to the wind.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
In context, your pic is a little unclear...

What’s unclear about a recreation?


Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
Is your "recreation" of the artifact, the "BLOB" on the left of what looks like the "original" artifact....(this is what i am assuming)

Yes


Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
if so, it doesn't (and no disrespect to your work) proove much.

It proves it can be faked.


Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
The original looks "3D" to an extent, and yours look like the sort of mark you make when you press a "biscuit cutter" into pastry.

I spent about 10 minutes on it, using Photoshop/pen tool. I applied a bevel and a gradient to an oval path, changed the opacity of the anomaly and grabbed an image from behind where I put it and overlaid that on top and changed the opacity down a bit to retain some of the compression markings.


Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
Although it has been discussed that the image is minipulated by a "skilled" person (if at all), i dont think it prooves much as most people are aware that you can make a "blob" on a picture.

And?


Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
What WOULD be more interesting, is if you tried REALLY hard to cover your tracks, making a GOOD replica, and then have someone (like JR for example) pull it apart to....

Yeah, I think I could have created a 3d model and used that instead of the pen tool, I might just do that actually and see where it goes.


Originally posted by Anomic of Nihilism
And THEN compair the ANOMALIES in the original to the "replica".

Yeah, that was my point.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:32 PM
link   
Guess we need to know more about how Ohare operates. I would think that the congestion picture would show planes approaching from the general westly direction with a NE or ENE wind and the opposite in november. It seems that there is no report of the UFO in the flight pattern, figuring 4:30 is busy with planes.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:39 PM
link   
phanton -

To be clear, did you recreate that fake using only the Airport congestion picture?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
To be clear, did you recreate that fake using only the Airport congestion picture?


Sorry no, I used the original that was posted here on ATS (Watermarked), I went on the assumption that the original photo could indeed have been taken with a cell phone and the anomaly added later.

The shape I created isn't very 3D, as dutifully pointed out, but my point was that I managed to keep the compression errors in place and put something behind them so to speak.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by phanton]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:57 PM
link   


It proves it can be faked


No it doesn't, like i said, most people KNOW that a blob can be put on to an image as i siad before.

The original looks a little bit more "there" than yours does, so PROOVE is a little too strong a word......."confirms",that images can be altered, may be more appropriate.



Yeah, that was my point.


Ok, thats cool, but there would be NO point in compairing the anomalies in your attampt as there would abviously be too many.

Im not trying to be rude, im just merely pointing out that i think all you prooved was that blobs can be put on images, which i think most were aware of.

PEACE


Edit: But anyway, spend abit longer on one,keep compairing util you think its good enough, and then post it so a few of us can can compair the "similarities" between them....

I dont disagree with what you're saying, i just think that "PROVES" is a very strong word to use


[edit on 25-1-2007 by Anomic of Nihilism]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by phanton

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
To be clear, did you recreate that fake using only the Airport congestion picture?


Sorry no, I used the original that was posted here on ATS (Watermarked), I went on the assumption that the original photo could indeed have been taken with a cell phone and the anomaly added later.

The shape I created isn't very 3D, as dutifully pointed out, but my point was that I managed to keep the compression errors in place and put something behind them so to speak.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by phanton]

But doesn't an image that has been modified in any way by Photo Shop contain the "Adobe" in the EXIF code? I don't believe that the original had this "Adobe". Is it possible to change the EXIF code and edit out the "Adobe"?



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 46  47  48    50  51  52 >>

log in

join