Atomic, by the way, I have a very hard time believing that no one in the tower saw the object as it was... now, granted, air traffic controllers are more screen-bound than naked-eye-oriented, but still, the object was present for at least 13-14 minutes (that's a very close estimation of how long I watched it, from the first sighting on Mannheim until it took off when I was in the parking lot), and even without a radar return, that's plenty of time for the tower to have been notified by the pilots who saw it and had radios handy, and perhaps even by other airport workers and/or their supervisors. I'm not holding my breath where tower personnel are concerned, though --- although it would be lovely if one would come forward, even anonymously, if indeed tower personnel did sight it either visually or on radar.

Atomic, it "tore off" out of there extremely quickly, and did indeed punch a hole in the clouds. It left at a slight angle, slightly easterly.

JBird, I'll figure it all out better when I actually have a chance to look at the map for more than a second, but when I was on Mannheim it was in an 11:30 position, as in ahead and slightly to the left of me (basically NNW), and when I was in the parking lot I was facing more WNW... I promise, before I sign in tomorrow and get flooded with questions again, I'll do a detailed check and try to pin it down exactly.

I'm off to bed now... will be back tomorrow to answer additional questions. And again, thanks for your welcome here.

Been lurking for a few days. 1st post here

Eyewitness,

Thank you for your contribution here. We all appreciate it.
Could you describe the actual leaving of the object? Can you talk about the speed or acceleration as it left? You have quite an elegant way with words, btw.
Reading your posts I feel like I'm there.

Thanks.

Thanks Eyewitness, its great to see you had the courage to post your story. Best of luck.

Originally posted by Ace_SD
Been lurking for a few days. 1st post here

Eyewitness,

Thank you for your contribution here. We all appreciate it.
Could you describe the actual leaving of the object? Can you talk about the speed or acceleration as it left? You have quite an elegant way with words, btw.
Reading your posts I feel like I'm there.

Thanks.

the answer to that question has been given already. i couldnt be bothered finding it in the posts so ill say from memory: "the craft shot upward showing no apparent acceleration."

Hi all-
I just wanted to drop a note after whats been about the most interesting 48 hours I've had in the UFO realm for a good while.

Firstly, Mr. Biedny and I have gone over the second photo, and again, see no signs of tampering. There also is some instances of common elements within and around the UO, that are significant enough to correlate to photo 1.

Not only this, but I believe I've located at least a rough area where shot 2 was taken from. American airlines seems to operate out of gate A20, and if this person were to shoot within that area at a vantage point, the UO is right where it should be in relation to him re: photo 1. I find that really compelling.

Also, despite user "You Guys Are Idiots" negative statements about photo 1, through their description of their location at the time they saw the UO, again, the UO is where it should have been, re: photo 1 and 2.

I have uploaded 2 times now, my overlayed map of labeled OHare, and a Google Earth view. The UO line of sight location and the position of shot 1 has been labeled as well. I'll be making another one showing where shot most likely would have been taken, as well as witnesses that have come forward here for reference and triangulation.

Many have written me privately to ask why I'm so "on" this one, and the answer is simple for me. I, nor David Biedny can dismiss it. There's not definitive evidence of tampering or composite, in fact it's rather the opposite. Channel specific items only discernible through extensive operations, witness corroboration of location and characteristics of the UO they claim to have seen. There's a lot as far as we're concerned.

I see (although I haven't seen them myself, but I've been told about them) that some are rumoring of Biedny's and my own expertise or knowledge in image processing and digital compositing.

Lemme lay it out for you. Biedny's knowledge of imaging and digital and composite is ridiculous. One only need to a Google search on his name and see that the man wrote the book on Photoshop, and his other book "Photoshop Channel Chops" is one of the most sought after books on the subject by experts in digital manipulation and graphic designers (as well as FX artists).

As far as I'm concerned, I've been an imaging professional since I was 19 years old, and I'm 40 now. I've worked in digital compositing, photo retouching (both digital and hand airbrushing), graphic design and CGI modeling and compositing into video for major U.S. companies and national recording artists. I've been a graphic designer to art director, to Director of Creative Development for one of the largest privately owned corporations in the east. I have freelanced as Hypergraphics Imaging off and on since 1991 whenever I felt the need to thrown down on my own. I am also trained in the classical sense of visuals, right down to brush and paint, which was always important to me not to just relinquish myself to digital arts.

I have applied what I do to the UFO field for nearly 20 years in the way of examination of photos and video. One of my highest moments was being the first to analyze the Mexico City footage of Aug. 6th 1997 and determine it was a CGI composited fake. Since then I've ID'ed a lot of fraudulent UFO visual data here on ATS and in other local and non-local cases, and been a frequent guest on The Paracast ( www.theparacast.com), published a report on Gulf Breeze for Parascope back on AOL, as well as being a team member of "Sightings on AOL", and Parascope. More often then not back then, I'd preferred to work the UFO cases behind the scenes, til The Mexico City case, where I felt it important to go on radio to get the statement out. Since then I've been a little more vocal.

So anyway, the point here is neither of us are rookies, to the UFO field nor digital imaging. Both of us are well known for not being fans of the hoaxed crap, and we both have sincere desire to know and understand more about the UFO phenomenon. I hope that gives the "rumor" folks a clue.

As far as myself I don't go into any case looking for anything but the actual data, whether it's fake or not, I want the bottom of it. Thats it, period. I been called a "debunker" (although I'm not) by many, because I wont accept belief for real answers and all the work it takes to get there. So friggin' be it.

Well...

At this point, David and I are very much still examining the shots, and it can take time. These answers don't come overnight.

Right now, we both agree that yes, with enough time and effort these photos can be faked. To the specifics I've mentioned here? It'd be a ridiculous pro, high end job. There are some very interesting things being seen within these shots. No doubt about it.

I've just gone over notes I took during a phone call with "Eyewitness", and once again, she has confirmed the object's location per her own location, and my estimation of where the object should have been (on overlay map). She was a pleasure to speak with, and she's obviously being very sincere and truthful. In fact, she's every investigator's dream: honest, forthright, great memory, and honest visual descriptions. I literally felt like I was there as we spoke. To boot, a really friendly and kind person to put up with my endless barrage of questions.

Yet again I have to say this, she's confirmed the location per the overlay map...as well as some items that haven't been talked about to any great length, that she couldn't have known without being there, and seeing it firsthand. David has sent me 2 files tonight of the second shot, with some very basic operations of unsharp mask, that reveal very well an aspect we see on both shots. I'll get them posted tomorrow.

We don't think at this point that these are faked images. I look at things like a scale, plus and minus. Right now it's leaning towards plus alot more then minus (meaning these are genuine photos).

We have more to do, and I'm sure there's more to come.

*New Ufo photo from a coast to coast listener*

I found this photo on coast to coast am's homepage, it was reportedly sent by a listener taken at O'hare's airport. I don't know authenticity of it but it does look remarkable. If anyone there on that day would like to comment on it or photoshop analyze it..it would help a great deal.



admin edit:We are trying to keep this thread CLEAR of known hoax shots.



[edit on 27-1-2007 by Revelmonk]

[edit on 1-27-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Revelmonk
*New Ufo photo from a coast to coast listener*

I found this photo on coast to coast am's homepage, it was reportedly sent by a listener taken at O'hare's airport. I don't know authenticity of it but it does look remarkable. If anyone there on that day would like to comment on it or photoshop analyze it..it would help a great deal.


[edit on 27-1-2007 by Revelmonk]

It's been debunked about 6 times now. This photo is a hoax, and the fact that it keeps coming up again and again only gives the hoaxer extra credit where it isn't due.

[edit on 1-27-2007 by Springer]

Originally posted by Eyewitness
Atomic, it "tore off" out of there extremely quickly, and did indeed punch a hole in the clouds. It left at a slight angle, slightly easterly.

JBird, I'll figure it all out better when I actually have a chance to look at the map for more than a second, but when I was on Mannheim it was in an 11:30 position, as in ahead and slightly to the left of me (basically NNW), and when I was in the parking lot I was facing more WNW... I promise, before I sign in tomorrow and get flooded with questions again, I'll do a detailed check and try to pin it down exactly.

I'm off to bed now... will be back tomorrow to answer additional questions. And again, thanks for your welcome here.

I just LOVE this quote!

Based on this description (to be clarified further once Eyewitness gets some well deserved rest, and has a chance to look over a map of the area), the O'Hare object (singular) depending on one's veiwpoint of its flight-path, could have been described to have been both easterly and verticle!

Against a relatively featureless background with mostly uniform luminence (as would occur given the weather conditions described at the time of the sighting: low clouds, late afternoon) a slight easterly path might be unrecognized. Especially if the viewing angle was slightly west of the object, and the viewer (I'm thinking of RampagentX here) was unprpared for the encounter. Otherwise occupied by the requirements of being "on the job".

It also means that this object, if it did hover over Concourse C and did head in an easterly direction on departure, would have been flying off in the general direction of the area marked on the map as "USAF Ramp!"


"ET Visits O'Hare, Buzzes Air Force Flyboys On Way Back to Mothership!"


I Love It!

[edit on 27-1-2007 by Bhadhidar]

Plus Or Minus

Originally posted by jritzmann
We don't think at this point that these are faked images. I look at things like a scale, plus and minus. Right now it's leaning towards plus alot more then minus (meaning these are genuine photos).

I'm leaning more toward the minus side on the photos (not on the eyewitness testimony, however) for less technical reasons, but the fact that you haven't been able to to quickly demonstrate that these are fraudulent (like you usually do ) is significant to me.

I've seen you shoot down enough bogus pics to know that you're not given to this much interest without good reason, and I'll be watching with interest as the analysis continues.

Meanwhile, I still advocate skepticism in all things, but not cynicism.

So far, that approach has worked out pretty well -- and even a cynic should be able to appreciate that there's something remarkable about this case, even if it is a weather phenomenon.

Apathy about this story doesn't make sense from any logical perspective I can understand.

Eyewitness, as a member of the media myself, I applaud you for coming forward. I can imagine how hard it was for you to do so.

No doubt the photos that have been posted are fakes, but there is no doubt the event happened, and you coming forward as an eyewitness makes this event exponentially legitimate.

Thank you for coming forward, and knowing that this event will, next to roswell, go down as the biggest UFOlogy event in history, its great to have you as a key contributor.

Now, to follow up on another poster's question: Did you feel any static electricity while the object was above, or while it took off. . AND. . what were your beliefs in UFO's/alien existance before your sighting at O'hare? I think this is important. . .



[edit on 27-1-2007 by amongus]

[edit on 27-1-2007 by amongus]

O'Hair Object. This is what U2U got me.. following:

(Mod edit: I removed the email address and phone number for your protection and that of the membership, and advise all members against initiating private personal contact unless you are comfortable doing so. That kind of information can optionally be exchanged via U2U. -- Majic)

[edit on 1/27/2007 by Majic]
user profilefind postssend u2u

U2U post at 2:00 AM
To: Eyewitness and Moderator
Subject: object, properties and it’s actions
Body: Eyewitness & Moderator. I am not much accustomed to playing with these sites.. for good reasons.. other than monitoring them.. so my 'etiquette' is not perhaps just the digidiot best. So.. sorry for posting my contact info. I really do not fear much.. and know that such may profit others.. as well as myself.. in these pursuits of the truth and what they may give us in broader deeper ways. I have no problem sharing my work, as stated in my 10:30 post so long as it remains my intellectual property. Why these sites are not helpful to me.. or us in this respect. I feel that by sharing what I have in your media is profit enough for you.. well knowing that you have to support your efforts.. which I too support. But not at the expense of losing control of my own property into your ownership. If you can overcome that.. I will do more for you. In any event.. to Eyewitness.. I have no problem sharing my files with you at all. If they are of interest to you.. as I so far have to believe by your excellent acounting they should. I will post more on the discussion, after this, in response to your further posts earlier.. to help explain. My email is ------------- and my telephono is ------------. My name is ---------- and I live in Tucson. Thank You again.. just sweet! Been waitin' a long time for this one.

Got this notice in response:
You may not send private messages to anyone
but ATS Staff until you have more than 20 posts.

(end)

So. No offense Majic. I know you have to pay your bills and I appreciate that you exponentiate an extremely valuable medium here. But. I frankly.. many decades in the saddle.. have no time for such when it is not in my best interests. I decide that. Not you. Your move.

What do you wish? That I post simply the numbers 3-20 sequentially, wasting your bandwidth and space, to overcome this little 'inconvenience', and be able to operate as promised above to provide my info via U2U?

As I have stated.. quite willing to share with you too. But you don't own it. You simply have my permission to use it.. with my best wishes indeed.

Your wishes please. b@# b@#$%&*

Please direct your cryptic posts in a U2U.


[edit on 27-1-2007 by amongus]

Just thought I'd add that If this turns out to be an advanced military aircraft, a number of people in the government are going to have ALOT of explaining to do.

Imagine what the technology demonstrated by this craft could do for our nation's dependence on foreign oil!

If, however, this encounter represents The long sought "first verifiable Close Encounter", the Moderators of ATS might want to invite some "distinguished authorities" to our ruminations.

I suggest soliciting the opinions of Prof. Stephen Hawking and Sir Arthur C. Clarke.

More importantly, if this is proven to be technology that we posess. . .what else is our government hiding from us? The coverup surrounding this event hopefully should open eyes to what is being done behind our backs.

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 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]

Thank you Hank. I was trying to get at this a few posts ago. . .

Eyewitness, i repeat the sentiment that is being given to you. You are doing an amazing thing.

I hope that here on ATS that we are starting the process of blowing the lid off on this subject, and i belive that it is now in motion.

With so many witness it seems very reasonable that there is not at least one guenie photo, of any kind of the event, and i hope they surface soon.

I'm glad 'eyewitness' came forward... looking forward to your further posts...

When you think about it... To an ET, an airport would be a great point of interest. Considering the thousands of our craft that take off and land from them daily.

Side Note:
What is everyones take on the possibility of UFOs having the capabilities of riding in and out of our visible light in the electromagnetic spectrum???
maybe, this could be their way of cloaking...

Side Note:
What is everyones take on the possibility of UFOs having the capabilities of riding in and out of our visible light in the electromagnetic spectrum???
maybe, this could be their way of cloaking...

They can manipulate gravity, which means they can bend 2 points of any period together,time traveling.. dimension skipping.