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: 53
99
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:24 PM
link   
Hello You guys are idiots,
I work for a contractor at a US Air Force base in Texas. After two days of analysis of the picture I came to the conclusion that it shows runway 4R and it could not possibly be any other runway. After that I was puzzled because it did not jive with the reports. It made no sense. The picture is good, yes, but the UFO is in the wrong place. And now you say it doesn't look like what you saw. Would you agree then that the UFO picture circulating depicts runway 4R which is way off from what the eyewitness reports say?




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea



That image has been proven to be a hoax in this and the other thread it spawned.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by fooffstarr

Originally posted by You guys are idiots
Thanks for the warning. I really don't have anything more to contribute about the object. What I can say though, If I saw what I thought I saw, it looked nothing like that 0000 pic that's been circulating.


I'm confused now...

You linked to that picture and identified it as the thing you saw, and then when someone posted it and asked you again you said 'no'...?


Let me double check the link I quoted. I'm sorry, this is a really big thread with many links.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:27 PM
link   
YouGuysAreIdiots:

Had you not gotten past the point of 294 on Mannheim?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:34 PM
link   
www.ufoevidence.org...

Maybe this is the link he was referring to.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
YouGuysAreIdiots:

Had you not gotten past the point of 294 on Mannheim?


You mean 190? I believe it was just before that. I was not on Mannheim though. There are two large structures which I believe hold mounds of salt on the south-eastern side of the airport. I was just north of them, heading north, looking to the northwest.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
www.ufoevidence.org...

Maybe this is the link he was referring to.


Thoes are the sketches I was refering to.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by You guys are idiots]



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by You guys are idiots

Lastly, I did see a link to a downloadable image posted in this thread that did look like the object I saw. Although it was not from the same vantage point, I was much farther away. This image of the UFO looked very similar in shape, location, and color to the object I saw. Having said that, it looks much bigger and not as high up in the sky as I remember it. But I was a fair distance away and only glanced at the object for about 15 or 20 seconds so.



guys/gals! he's not saying he saw a real photo. just one that looked similar or was a better representation. is that right Youguysareidiots?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:41 PM
link   
You Guys...

Did the picture have control towers in it and the tail of a plane? The object looked like a cloud?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
roadgravel, I think we just established what photo's he was referring to. See the link in my last post here. It's those sketches of the UFO....



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by You guys are idiots
You mean 190? I believe it was just before that. I was not on Mannheim though. There are two large structures which I believe hold mounds of salt on the south-eastern side of the airport. I was just north of them, heading north, looking to the northwest.


Well if I'm figuring correctly, and I have you in a general vicinity of where I think you were driving, you're pretty much confirming the spot I have the UFO being based on the photo and Google Earth caps a few pages back. I did an overlay of the airport map on this.

Where you were, towards the NW would be where I placed the UO being in the UFO photo sent by 00000000.

I know you might not agree with how it looks in that photo, but youre more or less confirming it's location based on the work I've done today.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann

Originally posted by You guys are idiots
You mean 190? I believe it was just before that. I was not on Mannheim though. There are two large structures which I believe hold mounds of salt on the south-eastern side of the airport. I was just north of them, heading north, looking to the northwest.


Well if I'm figuring correctly, and I have you in a general vicinity of where I think you were driving, you're pretty much confirming the spot I have the UFO being based on the photo and Google Earth caps a few pages back. I did an overlay of the airport map on this.

Where you were, towards the NW would be where I placed the UO being in the UFO photo sent by 00000000.

I know you might not agree with how it looks in that photo, but youre more or less confirming it's location based on the work I've done today.



You guys, jritzmann is referring to his work on page 50
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I too would agree with his findings.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea
Oh, ok.... thanks for posting that link!




[edit on 25-1-2007 by Palasheea]



I'm sorry. This is the image.



The one you posted was a smaller resized version. The object in the sky did not look right (too flat) which is why I said no. The larger image I posted was very similar to what I saw minus the lights, and perhaps a tad bulkier. I know now it's probably fake but when I first saw the pic, it just reminded me of the object I saw. Then when I had a glance of it the second time when you reposted the smaller version, it did not look right.

I'm very sorry about the confusion.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:01 AM
link   
That's understandable. That UFO is easier to see in the larger photo. The smaller one takes some squinting to really see anything but a slash...



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by HectorRmz
You guys, jritzmann is referring to his work on page 50
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I too would agree with his findings.


I'm relieved Hector, at this late hour I get fuzzy and somewhat squishy.

Of course this aint the first time someone has had a much different perspective of a sighting, and after all he/she said they didnt really see it for very long.

At any rate, it's good to have some sort of indication I'm at least in the ballpark for where it actually was. (based all all available info)



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by HectorRmz
The picture is good, yes, but the UFO is in the wrong place.

*snip*

Would you agree then that the UFO picture circulating depicts runway 4R which is way off from what the eyewitness reports say?


I would disagree. Both pictures have been taken from a vantage point where the runway is clearly on the left of the photo and the taxiway is clearly on the right of the photo. The congestion photo shows the same, so we can conclude that the two pictures were both taken from a right angle to the right of any given runway. IMO.

The taxiway on the left of Runway 4R would place the camera on the Left at a right angle to runway 4R and that's inconsistent with the pictures. Where the opposite side of the runway, 22L and the taxiway, would be consistent with the orientation of both pictures.

Just the way this Aircraft is positioned.








[edit on 26-1-2007 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Anyway it's getting late. I'm currently out of town, but I'll be back in Chicago Monday. I do not have internet access in Chicago and would not feel comfortable visiting this site at work, but I'll be sure to keep in touch. for the next couple days and periodically next week. This discussion is interesting and I hope a true image surfaces soon.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:11 AM
link   
jritz

I normally view maps with North to the top. I rotated your overlay 135 degrees.
Would you agree that your origrinal is not oriented with north up? I am comparing to the Ohare map.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
The taxiway on the left of Runway 4R would place the camera on the Left at a right angle to runway 4R and that's inconsistent with the pictures.


If youre looking at a taxiway on the 4R runway being the wrong direction youre at the wrong end. Above view (Hector linked to my overlay map just above, it's on page 50) shows the runway with taxiway on the right. I've labeled all points of ref. The photo is taken from one of the middle rungs just off the taxiway. Photo was taken looking left from the right position...map is there.

Thats it for me tonight folks...I'll cya all tomorrow. I'm absolutely spent.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by jritzmann]

[edit on 26-1-2007 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman

Originally posted by HectorRmz
The picture is good, yes, but the UFO is in the wrong place.

*snip*

Would you agree then that the UFO picture circulating depicts runway 4R which is way off from what the eyewitness reports say?


I would disagree. Both pictures have been taken from a vantage point where the runway is clearly on the left of the photo and the taxiway is clearly on the right of the photo. The congestion photo shows to same, so we can conclude that the two pictures were both taken from a right angle to the right of any given runway. IMO.

The taxiway on the left of Runway 4R would place the camera on the Left at a right angle to runway 4R and that's inconsistent with the pictures. Were the opposite side of the runway, 22L and the taxiway, would be consistent.

Just the way this Aircraft is positioned.







[edit on 26-1-2007 by lost_shaman]



I'm currently looking at your idea. I'm also trying to put something together to explain my findings. I will keep your input in mind as I work on this. Will reply a little bit later. Thanks.



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 50  51  52    54  55  56 >>

log in

join