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

page: 58
93
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join

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

Originally posted by jbondo

Originally posted by Fiverz
You forget though that 9/11 didn't have the religious implications that a nationally-televised UFO event would have. You pretty much pull the rug out from under 84% of the world's population with a UFO attack.


I'm so tired of this one!

I happen to be a faithful Christian and I see no reason why other lifeforms can't exist in the universe.


You may not, because you have an open mind ... but it does change the underlying belief structure for many who strictly follow certain religions that either explicitly or implicitly state there are no other beings. Cut that number in half and it's still a significantly larger percentage of the world's population affected. But I agree terrorism can also have religious implications. It's just my personal opinion that a UFO attack would have greater impact (not to lessen the tragedy of 9/11 at all ... I had family members meet a senseless death because of that attack as well).


Originally posted by sergejsh
Are ou sure that inside airplane, which is landing or descending (moving fast), water drops on the window will behave the same way as on the static ground, i.e. on your appartment window?


No I honestly don't. But the more I think about it, the absence of other drops makes me question what it is again. Plus it hasn't been proven that it was taken from an airplane either. In fact if the analysis of the "congestion" photo has shown anything, it's that a similar picture could have easily been taken from the ground. I mean think about it ... if you are in a rush to take a picture of something with a cell phone cam that most likely has no zoom, are you gonna take your time to make sure you are perfectly level with the ground and you have it centered? I sure as heck wouldn't ... I would try and take as many pics as fast as I could pointing at the object. Just because people said AFTERWARDS that the object remained static for some period of time, doesn't mean that the picture wasn't taken with haste and under the assumption that the thing could take off at any second. Just another couple lincolns for everyone.




posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by robertfenix
I flew from ORD on 11/15/2006 United 668 to New York, left from C gates (15 I think)

It had been really mild here, not even a hard cold snap yet, there was still a lot of green trees from what I remember on the whole drive up and in the Joliet area as well. As well as on 294 before the 190.

We did not get that big blast of snow until Thanksgiving, but prior to that it had been really mild.

Annuals had turned to gold and amber colors in mid Oct around 15th or so. But there are some evergreens that are still green even today 1/26/07.


I forgot to mention this in my previous post as well ... I moved back up to the southern suburbs the week before Thanksgiving and there was still plenty of green around here at that point (some 2-3 weeks after the event). So that can't really be used as a determining factor for this picture (unless there are other dated photos that show a lack of foliage around that time as well).



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:29 PM
link   
it should also be pointed out that the folks who have come forward as witnesses and who, presumably photographed this thing, were working at the time. they weren't standing around for 20 or so minutes, lining up shots and staring up at the sky. Odds are, they were doing their jobs so as to not get chewed out for delaying flights or raising safety risks.

the pics might have been taken on the fly, as it were.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Isn't it funny how the burden of proof is on the people trying to prove UFO's exist and some dip$hit that didn't even see it can make a statement like "it must have been a strange whether pattern, flares, or whether ballooon." and most people will buy it.


What happens when UFO's become identified?


What will everyone call them IFO's? Identified Flying Objects.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Realtruth
What happens when UFO's become identified?
What will everyone call them IFO's? Identified Flying Objects.


it was actually decided several years ago at a very high level clearance meeting that, in the event of UFO's being identified, they would, from that point on, be known as George.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by SkyWay
It is compared to Chicago. And if anyone is going to devote any time to a place the size of a Chicago suburb then it merits at least as much attention when a ufo appears over a great metro area like Chicago at an airport that is crowded with air-traffic landing and taking off.


Well, not to be off topic, but a city of over one million is a remote farm compared to a city of two million? Not to mention sightings were reported throughout the state....


Actually the population of Chicago is closer to 3 million. But to get back on topic, it really warrants painstaking investigation when anything unknown appears in the sky over one of the most congested airports in the world such as O'hare. This is an area where millions of airpassengers are coming and going everyday and if for no other reason, alien visitors aside for the moment, anything occupying air space over O'hare needs to be dealt with so as to try to prevent endangering the lives of so many people.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
it was actually decided several years ago at a very high level clearance meeting that, in the event of UFO's being identified, they would, from that point on, be known as George.


Thus making the statement "By George, I think we're done for!" a sentence equivalent to "We're done for by George!" for all the UFO doomsdayers out there.

I've been at the comptuer WAY too long today ...



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:50 PM
link   
The poster "A Sinclair" stated that there seemed to be an abnormal military presence at OHare.


I spoke to some friends after making the claim that there was a significant military presence during that sighting. ...
Something happened that day that I am sure of and whatever it was that people saw the military had concerns.


The post I quoted

The O'Hare map shows an area labeled "USAF ramp". Maybe someone can elaborate on that area. Is it still widely used by the military?

Could it be that the military was there doing something and the UFO showed up to watch or investigate? Is the military presense at the airport really unusual or more routine during any year.?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
Actually the population of Chicago is closer to 3 million. But to get back on topic, it really warrants painstaking investigation when anything unknown appears in the sky over one of the most congested airports in the world such as O'hare. This is an area where millions of airpassengers are coming and going everyday and if for no other reason, alien visitors aside for the moment, anything occupying air space over O'hare needs to be dealt with so as to try to prevent endangering the lives of so many people.


Well, we're closer to 1.5 million, and growing, so still about half the pop. which isn't a farm, that's all I'm saying. But I agree, this should be investigated for the fact lives were endangered, I stated before thought that if it was a government project, perhaps they were intentionally testing it over an area where air traffic is heavily monitored to test it's detectability...



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Fiverz

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]


Congrats on the anniversary! It is a very nice forum. I'm new here but hope to be around for awhile too. Anyway, since I'm not a photoshop expert, I had to rely on what I do know well. I work at a USAF base in Texas as a Flight Simulator Technician. I fly T-38 simulators every day (it gets old).
So, I started looking at the runways and quickly realized that all the photos show the same runway. I think that with a little analysis every one should see that. I then looked at the airport runways and found only two that could be the one in the pictures. The two runways are 4R and 14R.
By comparing the two and the photos, it is clear that it is 4R. 4R happens to be 1 mile from Gate C17 where the witnesses said it was "directly " above. Wether it is a real UFo, a drop of water, or a total fake, it doesn't matter when it is in the wrong place. If I told you I would meet you for lunch in front of city hall, would you expect me to be "in front of" city hall, or within a 1 mile radius?

Working around aircraft has taught me that precision is key to survival. You can't expect a pilot to land if you give him a vector and put him a mile of course from the runway at breakout. Would you? This is how you are supposed to look at this. If someone says they saw a UFO over Ohare and then shows you a picture of a UFO over the Empire State building, would you examine the photo for traces of photoshop or any tampering and ignore the location? Of course not. This UFO is over runway 4R. It's a mile off. Thank you Mr Zero, but better check your runways first next time. Some of us do work around aircraft all day.

[edit on 033131p://010718 by HectorRmz]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
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?

Well, it is not necessary raindrop. Actually, I don't think at all that this is raindrop. This drop can be inside airplane - not outside.

Next, this can be any liquid, for example drop of oil from the food. Or from the drink. Or it can be drop after somebody's sneezeng. You name it.



The reason I stick with it is that shape matches reports of how it looked.

Biggest argument AGAINST is location - this photo represents different airport location, for sure this "UFO" is not over Gate C17.
See my research with photos here.

And description of UFO not matches with this "object".

Here is O'Hare UFO descriptions:

"...rotating, and METALLIC in nature with no lights. ...it looked like a frisbe and was directly above."

"...the object was DARK GRAY and well defined in the overcast skies. ...Some said it looked like a rotating Frisbee"

"...an object up in the sky, DARK GRAY object, sitting above the terminal complex"


IF this shot is so damned fake

I don't think this photo is fake. It is not fake, but probably original photo, with no graphical manipulations. This is just airport photo taken through the airplane _ I also like to do such photos. That's it. And suddenly photographer noticed "something" in the corner. Hmmm... maybe this is IT? But problem is - photo appears to be taken in different than Gate C17 direction.

Photographer heard about "O'Hare UFO case" and, why not, there is something in the corner of he's photo! Wow! He probably emotionally reacted to this (as almost all people here) and believed that it can be that UFO! Why not? But who knows? Let's try to give it to the people from forum and we will see what happens.


But it appears to be not that case.


[edit on 26-1-2007 by sergejsh]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sergejsh

I don't think this photo is fake. It is not fake, but probably original photo, with no graphical manipulations. This is just airport photo taken through the airplane _ I also like to do such photos. That's it. And suddenly photographer noticed "something" in the corner. Hmmm... maybe this is IT? But problem is - photo appears to be taken in different than Gate C17 direction.

Photographer heard about "O'Hare UFO case" and, why not, there is something in the corner of he's photo! Wow! He probably emotionally reacted to this (as almost all people here) and believed that it can be that UFO! Why not? But who knows? Let's try to give it to the people from forum and we will see what happens.




[edit on 26-1-2007 by sergejsh]


Hehe. I wouldn't doubt it. Anything is possible.

[edit on 033131p://010710 by HectorRmz]

[edit on 043131p://010727 by HectorRmz]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by sergejsh
Or it can be drop after somebody's sneezeng. You name it.


I never thought of that angle, that would be comical if we were all racking our brains over a booger.


Either way, to me it's really not proof of anything either way. As somebody mentioned before, if it is a hoax, and as for who would be doing it, maybe it's that other board that had a problem with us (GLP? whatever), maybe they're laughing at us right now...



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:20 PM
link   
This might be radical thinking.. but instead of trying to prove what it is how about we try to eliminate what it isn't? I think we would get further along if we work from that angle.

Can we eliminate all known aircraft/weather ballons?

Can we eliminate all types of known birds or insects?

Can we eliminate the water drop theory?

Can we eliminate it being a hoax created with the other image?

Can we eliminate it being an alien spacecraft?

Can we eliminate it being an experimental aircraft that conforms to any known experimental designs?

I know I am not posting any ANSWERS to these questions, just trying to narrow down the possibilities of what we are actually looking at here.

In my layman's opinion, I think we can eliminate airplanes, birds, faeries, Venus, swamp gas, flares, insects, and Bigfoot. Admittedly though, these are only my opinions.

Anyone else have any serious possibilities that can be discounted as inprobable?



[edit on 26-1-2007 by HankMcCoy]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
Anyone else have any serious possibilities that can be discounted as inprobable?


Well, it's probably not a booger either. But in all seriousness, I think it probably isn't the object that was seen over O'hare that day, I think somebody is f-ing with us. Who would really post it for free on a internet discussion board when the real photo would be worth cash? If I had a photo of it, I sure wouldn't. I love this site and all, but screw you guys (j/k), I got mouths to feed.


Eventually it'd come out anyway, and i'd prolly stash a copy somewhere in case it got intercepted and once I cashed my check, then I'd post it here.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 05:51 PM
link   
Some of you guys seem to be stuck on the money that could be made selling the photo to news media. Just how much money do you think the person is going to get for something like this? It probably wouldn't amount to much. A few hundred dollars perhaps. That's all. That isn't worth risking the loss of one's job. So money is not really a serious factor here. Besides, not everyone is motivated by money.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jbird

Originally posted by Crakeur
Is it not odd that the reporter who broke the story, and then did a round of interviews has been silent for so long?


'vacation' could just be a cover story?

possible reasons why the reporter would
drop out of sight.

- waiting for further contact/info

- book deal with the witness/es

- further investigations(unfettered/'undercover')

- editors order

- writing 'scoop' piece for his paper

and
- Gov. involvement


Let us fervently hope that this reporter's "vacation" does not turn into an "Endless Summer" following some "Tragic Accident".

I also find it rather eerie, though perhaps the odds do not support my apprehension, that this UFO appeared over one of the terminals used by one of the two airlines (the other being American Airlines) involved with the 9/11 horror of 2001.

Lets us briefly recap:

An unknown object suddenly "appears" in restricted airspace, apparently "hovering" over a passenger terminal at one of the world's busiest airports. It does not announce its presence, even so far as signalling by lights (if it even had lights to signal with!) and apparently does not show up on radar; or so it is "officially" claimed.

I am not an expert with regard to airport safety and operations requirements, but I assume aircraft are not allowed to over-fly passenger terminals below a certain altitude?

Yet this "thing" hovered for some time over "Concourse C", and none of the airport's officials took any action?

This raises another question: How is it that this "object" came to appear, at a busy airport, in one of the few locations, and at an altitude least likely to result in an air-to-air collision?

Was it luck? Superior 'Alien' intellect?

Or maybe it was "pre-arranged"? By who, I wonder?

And why?

Curious as well, if this were a "spur-of-the-moment", yet pre-arranged encounter, where would seasoned airport personnel be least likely to look for an aircraft to appear? Perhaps where they all know that an aircraft should NEVER appear!

And recall, the UFO was said to have appeared to be "trying to stay close to the cloud cover", as one report put it. Perhaps attempting to remain at least inconspicuous, if not sucessfully, invisible?

Unlikely behaviour for an "Alien" visitor! Especially one who has just gone to the trouble of homing-in on a major Earth airport!

I hope the aforementioned reported makes it back from his vacation safe and healthy; but even then, I for one would not be at all suprised to hear that he has accepted another position, Bureau Chief, perhaps in some Asian country.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by SkyWay
So money is not really a serious factor here. Besides, not everyone is motivated by money.


Well, here in the remote farmlands of Phoenix, we need all the money we can get as the crops haven't been paying off as much what with all them buildings that suddenly sprung up around here. Eventually I wanna buy one of them there television sets I've heard tell of.


And you're just speculating on how much money one could get, sure the photo we have here wouldn't be worth squat, but if somebody had something real solid, you have NO idea how much one could make....



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by SkyWay
So money is not really a serious factor here. Besides, not everyone is motivated by money.


And you're just speculating on how much money one could get, sure the photo we have here wouldn't be worth squat, but if somebody had something real solid, you have NO idea how much one could make....


Yes, but it's the photo that some people keep whining about that they can't seem to come to grips that anyone would post it on a forum for free when they supposedly could BECOME RICH!! selling it! That is not very sensible because the money wouldn't be a significant amount for a single photo.



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by HankMcCoy
This might be radical thinking.. but instead of trying to prove what it is how about we try to eliminate what it isn't?

I am 100% sure that this photo presents NOT "O'Hare UFO".

1. because it is NOT over Gate C17
2. because it is NOT metallic-looking and for sure NOT dark-grey.

And this can be proven (actually proven already).


So what we need more? Oh, I know... people need "a hope"
that maybe, oh yes yes... a miracle, etc. And "I want to believe".

But it is religion or what? Or our conclusions should be based on evidence, research, facts and simple logic, at end?


Can we eliminate all known aircraft/weather ballons?

We can eliminate that.

Balloon over busy airport?
And how ballon can dissapear in the sky with so great speed, as witnesses saying?

The same about unknown aircraft. Who will do such experiments and for what?


Can we eliminate all types of known birds or insects?

We can eliminate that.


Can we eliminate the water drop theory?

No.
Another photos show very big similarity with water (or another liquid) drops.


Can we eliminate it being a hoax created with the other image?

I personally don't think this is a hoax (I mean UFO). Too primitive and very similar to waterdrop. Not convincing.


Can we eliminate it being an alien spacecraft?

"Alien spacecraft" appears too watery, IMHO.

This appears as alien spacecraft.
And this appears as alien spacecraft.
And this. (this, actually, appears as gray and metallic-looking)
And this.
And this.
And this.

etc.


Can we eliminate it being an experimental aircraft that conforms to any known experimental designs?

This question is the same as about balloon and unknown aircraft.
.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by sergejsh]



  exclusive video


top topics
 
93
<< 55  56  57    59  60  61 >>

log in

join