Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

O'Hare Airport UFO Sighting -- UPDATE: Photos & Analysis

page: 56
93
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
This has always been the case when they state for reasons of "National Security" it is not that they fear some other nation will get ahold of a classified secret on the subject it is the fear that if the American public truely knew the "truth" ie that we could at any time or place be attacked by a force we have little knowledge or defense against that this fear could promote total chaos in our society.

This could be terrorism you’re talking about, where the terrorists can sneak bombs into buildings without the knowledge of the Gov, sneak onto planes, killing innocents left right and centre. But the Gov don't mind installing panic in the people when it comes to terrorism. So the mass panic is a mute point.


Originally posted by robertfenix
So their reasoning is that it is for the sake of our own personal sense of security so that we may live our daily lives as normal, un incumbered by the threat of an "alien" enemy.

Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism!!!!!

Oh, and don't forget about Terrorism!!!!!




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love

Originally posted by Fiverz
While it's probably POSSIBLE for a water drop to be at a wierd angle like that, I am now leaning away from the water drop theory.




Forgive me for the schleppy arrows. Not only is it "probably possible", it's highly probable.

There is something going on here and ATS's "professionals" are in on it. Is this some kind of test or something?

Peace


I was gonna post that image rotated 8 to 10 degrees to show you that it does make a difference ... but ... it doesn't haha. Most of the drops actually still look parallel to the ground when rotated by that small of an angle. Well I thought I had ruled something out, now I'm back to the very beginning of the thread and having no idea what I'm looking at. Well at least lots of ads got viewed while I was reading all 55 pages here, eh


Like I mentioned previously, along with others, the only way that we are gonna get any resolution on this is for the eyewitnesses to actually step forward, give us their names so we can verify that they are genuine, and have them pass judgement. We can talk about water drops and photoshops until we're blue in the face but we're not gonna get any definitive conclusion without that firsthand testimony.

EDIT: oh yea yesterday was my one-year ATS-joining anniversary! go me!

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Fiverz]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
ok, so there's a youtube link to an interview with an airport employee who witnessed the object. that link is here - www.youtube.com...


the image shown in the video is a simple runway photo that was also used in the apparent hoax photo found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

the youtube "video" starts with "area 51 productions"

any chance area 51 productions is putting out the hoax photos?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:01 PM
link   
While experimenting with creating a duplicate "hoax" image can be a productive learning experience, I think it may be counter productive to include that activity within this thread.

Several people are still "on the fence" about the first image posted here, and even those who feel it's a hoax recognize there are puzzling attributes that inject some degree of doubt.

I'd like to ask everyone to refrain from inserting your image manipulation attempts in this thread, and perhaps create a new thread for that type of speculation. It would be terrible if a mainstream news service picked up on our discussion thread and "accidentally" used one of the experimental mock-up images as the "official UFO picture"... the results would likely be counterproductive for the ideals of disclosure and awareness.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by phanton

This could be terrorism you’re talking about, where the terrorists can sneak bombs into buildings without the knowledge of the Gov, sneak onto planes, killing innocents left right and centre. But the Gov don't mind installing panic in the people when it comes to terrorism. So the mass panic is a mute point.

Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism!!!!!

Oh, and don't forget about Terrorism!!!!!


Terrorism only affects a limited number of people, usually those people in the target zone and their families. Because bombs blew up spanish trains, did that stop people from riding trains in Ohio, no.

But say a UFO destroys a plane in mid air and 100 people die, then a UFO destroys a bridge and 40 cars fall into the sea. The impact on the population is far different then when a few radicals drive a bomb into a building.

We can track people, we can listen to their calls and read their emails.

Sorry terrorism is not the same as threats to our security from UFO's



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

Originally posted by amongus
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?


So, can somebody with imaging software. . hint, hint. . zoom into the picture in question to see if my theory above is legit? I'm pretty sure it is. . Look at the below photo below that compares a aerial photo with the congestion photo and the zero photo. look again at zero's photo and you can CLEARLY see full, green trees next to the hangers. Full green trees in NOVEMBER?


Debunked. . . but would like some support here. We can end this with one bullet!

[edit on 26-1-2007 by amongus]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by phanton
But the Gov don't mind installing panic in the people when it comes to terrorism. So the mass panic is a mute point.


They don't mind when it suits them. But they are fully aware the knowledge that we're being watched and visited by beings from another world will make the world population realize we're all not so different and that's the last thing they want...



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

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by phanton
But the Gov don't mind installing panic in the people when it comes to terrorism. So the mass panic is a mute point.


They don't mind when it suits them.


manipulated terror is something that can be controlled. Gov't scares us, gov't does something to pacify us, we are happy.

if the public is panicked over something the gov't has no control over, well, the panic will only get worse.



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

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
While experimenting with creating a duplicate "hoax" image can be a productive learning experience, I think it may be counter productive to include that activity within this thread.

I don't agree with you at all, but your a mod so you could throw your pacifier at me and ban me, so I will refrain from any more investigative work on the HOAX.


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
Several people are still "on the fence" about the first image posted here, and even those who feel it's a hoax recognize there are puzzling attributes that inject some degree of doubt.

I'll say it again, who gives up a barrel of money to post on here?


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
I'd like to ask everyone to refrain from inserting your image manipulation attempts in this thread, and perhaps create a new thread for that type of speculation.

Something aint right here!


Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It would be terrible if a mainstream news service picked up on our discussion thread and "accidentally" used one of the experimental mock-up images as the "official UFO picture"... the results would likely be counterproductive for the ideals of disclosure and awareness.

All my mock-ups have text 'embedded' so such a misunderstanding cannot occur. Anyway, surley the mainstream are smarter than that.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
manipulated terror is something that can be controlled. Gov't scares us, gov't does something to pacify us, we are happy.

Yeah, i didn't think of it that way, you could be right.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
I wouldn't be surprised to find out that all the supposed pictures are hoaxed. With all the airplay it got (much more than the usual sighting) you would expect the pics to be out immediately.

As for the reporter going on vacation, why would she be all over this story? Let’s not forget, those of us at ATS are here because we have a specific interest. Most of the world is not really involved at all. In her mind it could be just another UFO circus complete with tinfoil hat wearing nutjobs. Far from a career story.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
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


Because there's alot more to it then saying "raindrop", which I dont agree with anyway. If it's a "raindrop" why is there only one? How many times you seen a raindrop on your windshield...alot right? How many times ya seen just one?

To boot, on an airplane window? Please.

The reason I stick with it is that shape matches reports of how it looked. As I said before Biedny and I have found artifacts around the UO that appear to be atmospheric disturbances, as was also reported, and reported around the bottom of the UO...just like we're seeing.
IF this shot is so damned fake, not only would me and Biedny readily see that within this time, we wouldnt be seeing channel specific anomalies either.

What hoaxer do you know that messes with specific channels when they fake something? Like I said, I have to balance all this with how far someone is willing to go to fake something. I cant put it off to a "happy accident". This is also not the kind of event nor photo I can just walk away from not being sure. You guys know me...I dont do that. History here bears that out I think...Doc you oughtta know that right? How many times do I grind a hoaxed shot to death?

Then we have an alledged witness on this board last night giving his/her location when they saw it, and it seems to match where I have the object being in the map...despite that they themselves dont believe the photo?

Christ...sorry I cant walk from that. It's a bit wierd.

Please, just indulge me...there's stuff goin on deeper then a PS fake, or water. I'll be back, I'm on the phone with Biedny in the next hour so we can go over some stuff. Might have more to show ya.



[edit on 26-1-2007 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkepticOverlord
It would be terrible if a mainstream news service picked up on our discussion thread and "accidentally" used one of the experimental mock-up images as the "official UFO picture"... the results would likely be counterproductive for the ideals of disclosure and awareness.


It would be just as terrible if a mainstream news service picked up on this thread and used the "original" image. This photo is more than a probable hoax -- it is almost certainly a hoax. Either way we are going to look stupid if we keep giving this photo more than a shred of authenticity.

I'm glad phanton posted his mock-up, because it shows how the UFO picture can be easily created from a widely available picture of O'Hare on the 'net. That in itself discredits the picture.

And phanton brings up another good point: why the hell would this person who released the photo do so without compensation? There is absolutely no reason for someone to wait this long to release a picture if they aren't seeking some kind of compensation -- especially if they do it anonymously. And I doubt it was a United employee who was scared for his/her safety, who happened to post exactly when the thread lost popularity, who was behind a proxy, and who was obviously proficient in posting on message boards.

There are so many things about this that just scream, "HOAX!" Like I pointed out earlier, there's no way to prove without a doubt that this picture is fake. So I suggest that we stop wasting our time and move on.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by Postal76]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbondoAs for the reporter going on vacation, why would she be all over this story? Let’s not forget, those of us at ATS are here because we have a specific interest. Most of the world is not really involved at all. In her mind it could be just another UFO circus complete with tinfoil hat wearing nutjobs. Far from a career story.


if the reporter thought it was just another UFO circus, why would they report it in the first place? it's strange that he (I thought it was a guy) writes his article, then a couple of months later he is being interviewed about this exciting and strange story and then he takes a vacation. Just as the media is picking up on this he hits the beach? It makes no sense at all.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
What hoaxer do you know that messes with specific channels when they fake something? Like I said, I have to balance all this with how far someone is willing to go to fake something. I cant put it off to a "happy accident".


First, I think its a fake. Looks too much like a drop of water (actually, it looks exactly like a drop of water), why now...and why free?....and a poster here made one that looks identical. And would someone look into the questions about the weather and foilage raised by amongus?

I think there are people willing to go to extreme measures to fake something. I'm willing to bet the very same 'PhotoChop' experts that can investigate an image like this, are just as capable of creating an image with the proper 'touches', that will create the kind of response you may be exhibiting. I'm not faulting anyone personally, just don't forget....the 'dark side' can also be experts....

I think the focus should be on 'why' a well hoaxed picture.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
Terrorism only affects a limited number of people, usually those people in the target zone and their families.

Rubbish.


Originally posted by robertfenix
Because bombs blew up spanish trains, did that stop people from riding trains in Ohio, no.

YES in London people stopped using the tube for at time also. Then there is 9/11!


Originally posted by robertfenix
But say a UFO destroys a plane in mid air and 100 people die, then a UFO destroys a bridge and 40 cars fall into the sea. The impact on the population is far different then when a few radicals drive a bomb into a building.

Sorry but 9/11 changed the fooking world and the laws, we all lost freedoms because of 9/11 and to say it did not have an impact is plain ignorant.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by phanton]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:53 PM
link   
The mainstream media and people that want to disprove anything, including UFO's have many tools to do so, but the best tool they have are peoples closed minds and those same people not willing to look outside of what they have been conditioned to believe their whole life.

In our western culture we are taught to ridicule things that are foreign to us.


Most people are caught up in the rat race and trying to keep up with the jones and if something remotely foreign is introduced, into their plastic bubble of a world, it gets quickly dismissed as "whatever!"

Until we stop and really look at what is going on, the only thing most people will see is the BS surreal world that we humans have created for ourselves.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   
has anyone thought about contacting the reporter to alert them to the photo(s) and to possibly get their thoughts for the site?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
if the reporter thought it was just another UFO circus, why would they report it in the first place? it's strange that he (I thought it was a guy) writes his article, then a couple of months later he is being interviewed about this exciting and strange story and then he takes a vacation. Just as the media is picking up on this he hits the beach? It makes no sense at all.


Sorry about the misidentification of gender.

As for your question it's called assignment. Hey Joe, things are slow around here, run out to the airport. Somebody called in and said they and others saw a UFO. Check it out, if it's not completely bogus we'll run it. Joe goes and does the story and that's it! He moves on...

Regarding a one drop rainstorm, every pane of glass has to get that first drop. If you click a picture as that first drop hits....

I just see too much of a gap between story and pictures. Although I do believe the witnesses, I don't think any of these pics will prove out.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
There not involved because for the sake of National Security they can not admit that they do not have control of the airspace.

"National Security" means to be in control of aspects they can be in control of ie "the public preception" not that they can actual enforce security over something they have no control of ie "the airspace being infiltrated by UFO's".

This has always been the case when they state for reasons of "National Security" it is not that they fear some other nation will get ahold of a classified secret on the subject it is the fear that if the American public truely knew the "truth" ie that we could at any time or place be attacked by a force we have little knowledge or defense against that this fear could promote total chaos in our society.

So their reasoning is that it is for the sake of our own personal sense of security so that we may live our daily lives as normal, un incumbered by the threat of an "alien" enemy.

This in turn provides "national Security" as you do not have mass people wigging out about the unknown.


[edit on 26-1-2007 by robertfenix]

[edit on 26-1-2007 by robertfenix]


Robert, you've mentioned a few things here that I think all of us should be concerned about. The following are some thoughts in no particular order that are going through my mind about those security issues having to do with this sighting.

#1 First off, the FAA refuses to investigate this sighting but this of course is standard practice for them with Ufos and the fact that they are doing it again in this case only confirms to us that in fact IT WAS A UFO THAT WAS SEEN AT THE O'HARE AIRPORT.

#2 So this concerns me because here we have a UFO flying in restricted airspace over one of the busiest airports on the planet that's seen by several very credible witnesses -- a large flying unidentifiable craft that could potentially collide with commercial airliners flying in and out of that airport jeopardizing hundreds of lives -- yet the FAA isn't going to investigate this!!??!

#3 So what we have here is an unidentified object FLYING IN RESTRICTED AIRSPACE which should be interpreted, for all concerned, as possibly being there with HOSTILE INTENT! Afterall, why would it be flying in such potentionally hazardous sky's in the first place, yet the FAA is not investigating this?

#4 If 'it' just wanted to say hi and show up somewhere where whole mobs of people could see it, it would have flown over something like an NFL game --- but no, instead it flys into restricted airspace over one the busiest airports in the world!

#5 Not very friendly, I would say.... not very friendly at all! This scares me.






[edit on 26-1-2007 by Palasheea]





new topics

top topics



 
93
<< 53  54  55    57  58  59 >>

log in

join



atslive.com

hi-def

low-def