Hey jritzmann,

It's a mirror image, that IMO shows a view from the right hand side of an Aircraft, placing the runway in front of the Aircraft and on the left of the photo. If we were looking out of the left hand window of an aircraft between the runway and taxiway we'd see the runway on the right hand side of the photo.


In other words, if the runway originates on the left of the image then the picture was taken from the starboard side (Right) looking towards the nose of the Aircraft.

If the runway originates on the right of the image then the picture was taken from the port side ( Left ).

Of course if the Aircraft had just landed and turned off the runway onto the taxiway, then the photo would have been taken from the port side (left).



[edit on 26-1-2007 by lost_shaman]

Originally posted by roadgravel
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.

Hey-no north isnt up on that. I been looking at google earth's compass for that and all directions. I dont usually crop it with the compass in, sorry.

I overlayed the Ohare labeled map based on structures. What I labeled on pg50 with the google earth shot and overlayed, labeled Ohare map, represents still, where I believe the shots were taken. And if thats the case, then You Guys Are Idiots trajectory would coinside with him/her seeing the UO to the rough NW, as they said they were south of the airport at the time.

I agree with Hector, in that I dont see it being any other landing strip...all the features I see in the photos, I see in Google Earth (i.e. white tanks etc.)

G'nite.

Something to chew on that maybe we arent looking at. Is there anyone on this thread in the Chicago area? What was the weather like around that time, more specifically the "greenage". I am from chicago originally, and know that the grass starts to lose its green towards the end of october, and the trees are definately brown or bare by the first week of november if not mistaken.

The photo provided by mr zero looks way too green to have been taken in november. I think I can make out trees lining some of the hangers in the distance, and they look dark and full. The grass lining the runways are definately full green, which seems pretty abnormal to me for that time of year. If so, that doesnt seem to match with the time that it was supposedly taken which could be the answer to our hoax question.

I'm not too savvy with photo imaging, and dont know how to zoom in or post the original pic.

Can we explore this possibility?

^ I also believe Mr. Zero's photo to be a hoax.

There is just too many things that don't add up. I am sure that it IS NOT the same photo as the one some members were trying to compare it to earlier, but i think the 'UFO' might just be a water droplet or something that someone has tried to pass off as something extraterrestrial.

My Opinion: The Photo's A Hoax



Despite all the analysis of all sorts of characteristics of the shot, I just can't buy this picture as legitimate because:

1. It doesn't match the conditions described by the witnesses.

2. The "UFO" is in the corner. Who would frame a shot to put a UFO in a corner? How does that make sense?

3. Assuming the UFO wasn't the target of the shot, it doesn't really point at anything, which also doesn't make sense.

4. The clincher for me: The photo is not level, and shows the horizon at an angle. Yet the "UFO" is not level with the horizon. It's level with the photo!

I'm sure there are ways to explain away all these things, but nonetheless I think this is a case of a Photo being Shopped around the 'Net.

In other words, a hoax.

Not Evidence Of Absence

Meanwhile, skeptic that I am, I think the sighting reports themselves are legitimate, and I seriously doubt that whatever was seen over O'Hare airport that day was a "weather phenomenon" or "optical illusion" caused by airport lighting or any such nonsense.

I don't think the real witnesses to this sighting are idiots, and nothing The Government has offered explains how an "optical illusion" could punch a hole in an overcast cloud layer.

I doubt we'll ever see real photos of the actual event, however.

But it's still worth checking anyway, if you ask me. After all, even hoax photos help train us to spot hoax photos.

Major kudos to my fellow members for some excellent analysis!

And of course, I could be wrong, you know.

Originally posted by Majic

1. It doesn't match the conditions described by the witnesses.

Well I'm not so sure about that. Some of the subtleties seem to add to the credibility IMO.

Originally posted by Majic
2. The "UFO" is in the corner. Who would frame a shot to put a UFO in a corner? How does that make sense?

You do know that without the landscape this picture would be absolutely worthless right?

Just pointing that out. In fact anyone who ever takes a pic of a UFO would be well advised to include the landscape even if the UFO is not Centered in the picture.

Putting Things In Context

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Just pointing that out. In fact anyone who ever takes a pic of a UFO would be well advised to include the landscape even if the UFO is not Centered in the picture.

Granted, context is necessary, but that still doesn't explain the composition of the shot.

And it definitely doesn't explain why the "UFO" was so thoughtfully aligned with the camera's odd angle and not the ground.

Unless I'm expected to believe that the "UFO" was hovering at a bizarre angle and the photographer decided to match that angle while putting it in a corner -- which would be expecting too much, in my opinion.

Granted, maybe I'm just not understanding what would be an even more bizarre set of circumstances than even the witnesses described, but at some point attempting to explain away the photo's oddities ceases to be analysis and begins to resemble creative writing.

Could the photo be a red herring ?
Yes i definately think the disinfo benefits of a hoaxed photo would be tremendous.I have burned the retinas going over some fifty pages of posts, and frankly am about as sick of this subject as a man can be at 2 am having read all and found no real concensus.
There are angles that are begging investigation here that are being totally ignored as many pages and hours are wasted debunking a very hard picture to work with in the first place,perhaps this is benefit enough to muddy the waters ......
What of other witnesses?Youguys,can you will you ask around or at least listen for other details from other witnesses?I am positive that this event will be common converstaion around OHare for some time to come....
could you would you be willing to seek out more info from others who work there?(without compromising your employ or standing there...)
Surely your co workers are talking about this over coffee.....
Without jeopardizing your position or employment,or for that matter taking a stance one way or the other, perhaps you can relay what other workers reactions and comments are about it.
You so far are the only on the spot person thats checked in.
Much appreciated,but by the way,is there some sleuthing that you would be up to as well?
The people who origonally observed this thing,have made written statements,to their employer the airline.
Is there any way you can inform us of other activity as far as official investigations or internal ones by the company involved
Just let us know f you hear of interviews being taken or people poking around flashing official ids and questioning people.
Can you confirm any unusual military activity?or usual too!
I think physical detective work could be going by the board because of this picture,and we are being drawn into speculation about something that we cannot solve so that we will not be on the ball with the things we could
be doing to investigate the sighting itself.
are you into the eyes and ears thing?even scuttlebutt at work may shed some light or add something new.
Keep an eye out for strange officials who are concerned with the sighting and want to talk to witnesses??
Maybe that is an angle we will get some side info from.
Just asking ,but it may help over the long haul.

Originally posted by Majic
Granted, context is necessary, but that still doesn't explain the composition of the shot.

Well I think we know that both shots were from an Aircraft that was between the Runway and Taxiway, and regardless of validity, both shots are taken from basically a very similar position looking down one specific runway.

Originally posted by Majic
And it definitely doesn't explain why the "UFO" was so thoughtfully aligned with the camera's odd angle and not the ground.

That's a good point and it might be a proverbial nail in the Coffin. I'm just not sold one way or the other yet.

I think all REAL pics of what happened on the day are in the safe hands of the authorities.These pics are just put out to disscredit the story,putting doubt out for the sheep, who lets face it, will believe anything.

Originally posted by Majic
Putting Things In Context

Originally posted by lost_shaman
Just pointing that out. In fact anyone who ever takes a pic of a UFO would be well advised to include the landscape even if the UFO is not Centered in the picture.

Granted, context is necessary, but that still doesn't explain the composition of the shot.

And it definitely doesn't explain why the "UFO" was so thoughtfully aligned with the camera's odd angle and not the ground.

Unless I'm expected to believe that the "UFO" was hovering at a bizarre angle and the photographer decided to match that angle while putting it in a corner -- which would be expecting too much, in my opinion.

Granted, maybe I'm just not understanding what would be an even more bizarre set of circumstances than even the witnesses described, but at some point attempting to explain away the photo's oddities ceases to be analysis and begins to resemble creative writing.

maybe when they took the shot it was the focal point but understood that they needed to show more of the airport and ground to prove the location? so, they had to crop it to the right and that offset the ufo?

First Time to Comment... The Aircraft Landing shot appears to be taken from ground level... The original report stated the "Object" was below the Cloud layer; to me that would mean a relative "Clean" atmosphere with high and low cloud formations Not a "Foggy Hazy" situation. The "Phone Shot" appears to be shot from some substantial Height, since you are looking "Through" the Haze...The "Object" appears closer than the "Runway Lights"... If So, the object is not very large. I don't think there would be that much contrast in shading between the top and bottom of the "Object"... If it were only as "High" as reported it should get "LIT" a bit by the Lighting below... Also; depending on it's atmospheric "Drive", hanging there, there should be some "Field Effects), or "Luminosity" in the area around the craft... When it departed. and left a substantial hole in the clouds, the "Object" had to be of considerable size, and "Power" as the "Cloud Hole" was definitely a "Technogenic" effect caused by a "Repulsor Drive Field"!!! If the witnesses' are to be believed. The Picture is a "Doctor Job" "Here Endeth the Epistle"

Perhaps the truth is that the powers that be want people to think this photo is disinfo when it is actually real. This is a little more sly than just coming straight out and calling the photo a hoax, like common debunkers, but at the same time it is an attempt to discredit the photo as any debunker would. In other words...the disinfo is that the photo is disinfo.

If the photo is genuinely of a ufo, I'll bet the ufo pilots are having a good laugh over all of the hair-pulling perplexity they have put some people through in trying to figure out whether it is real or not.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by SkyWay]

Originally posted by sergejsh

Originally posted by Postal76
I think depending on your vantage point, the dark part of the drop can appear to be the top or the bottom.

I found few photos taken in rainy weather condition (cropped versions):

and again, alleged "O'Hare UFO" photo (cropped):

Nobody see similarity?

.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by sergejsh]

Why didn't anyone comment on this post from page 51? Why are we talking about runways, hotels and such? What's going on here? Was it Colonel Mustard in the library with a candlestick? The hub-bub seems to be increasing about an obvious fake. So many newish members keeping a thread going is always a bad tell tale sign. And why JRitz is so rapped up in this is beyond me, I would have thought a lot of other UFO pics were more worthy of your time than this one.

Peace

IMO you are absolutely right Doctor!

If that's not a raindrop, I'll eat a supermodels hat!