It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 65
<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:02 PM
It seems as though ATS has gained some wider credibility and traction regarding this issue. Is there anything we can do as a community to get that large number of witnesses (as described by eyewitness and the mechanic who has come forward to the media) to come forward with their photos? Clearly, if what these people say is true, there are a large number of pictures sitting in digital cameras and cellphones out there all taken from slightly different angles. Used together, someone like jritz could put tyhis whole thing together very quickly. Perhaps the Tribune could run an article asking people to come forward with their pictures? Any other ideas? This could be the biggest UFO event in a very long time.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:08 PM
I can dig it Springer...thats less work me and David have to do.

What gets me about that shot (2) is how it fell in line with line of sight with the gate (A20) where American seems to fly out of. Damn man, if they guy pulled that shot out of the air he deserves the Bob Ross "Happy Accident" award. If not, he did his homework.

It just goes to show, that this stuff cant be rushed because people want an answer. The first photo still intrigues me, and I'll say it again, being the person to find "congested" and post it's dissolve...I really thought I was onto something. But there's too much other stuff we cant ascribe to going father then the ocular distortion...and it's still there...we cant ignore it.

That, and after speaking to an eyewitness last night who confirmed my placement of the UFO on the overlay map, gave me the statement that she didnt think shot 2 looked like what she saw, but when she saw shot 1..she said the words I've heard from witnesses seeing a photo of their event: "thats IT."

I'll add that she also gave us some info that will immediately will give us an advantage against shots like #2, (if more come) which I wont reveal to give hoaxers the edge over us. If people have a legitimate shot of the sighting, they should feel good about submitting it to us knowing we'll moreover recognize certain aspects the actual event.


EDIT-just so everyone knows, I'm taking down a few images off my webspace used to show some shots here to make room for new ones. If ya see some images no longer there, thats why.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by jritzmann]

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:13 PM
Picture 2, another that looks almost or exactly like another photo. Having taken many pictures over my lifetime, I know it can be difficult to get very similar pictures in framing and alignment even when trying. For two different persons even harder. I have always be surprised by that observation. Of course that doesn't count a fixed camera position or motor-drive situation. Some day the hoaxers will probably decide that they should start with their own original picture which may be more effort then they are willing to take.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:18 PM

Originally posted by jtma508
there are a large number of pictures sitting in digital cameras and cellphones out there.....

You may be surprised at the number of photos on cellphones belonging to people who don't know how or have the equipment to get the pictures from phone to pc. Heck, I'm in the tech business and have several photos on my own phone that may be there forever. There's a real good chance a bunch of photos exist on the phones of very frustrated persons right now.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 01:45 PM
will you people stop with the bad photoshop fakes please? How will we ever know if a real one turns up. Not to mention these fakes are'nt even well done.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:16 PM

Originally posted by wildone106
will you people stop with the bad photoshop fakes please? How will we ever know if a real one turns up. Not to mention these fakes are'nt even well done.

((insert troll - ignored))


[edit on 1/27/2007 by Hydden]

[edit on 1/27/2007 by Hydden]

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:21 PM
Hydden, although you recanted your comments, keep in mind that of the 4 O'Hare pictures we've seen so far, 3 are definite fakes, and the authenticity of the fourth is still being debated. And ALL of them closely resemble other pictures found on the web.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:44 PM
Peter Davenport responds on pictures this morning January 27th:

The photos that have come forward almost certainly have nothing
to do with the original sighting over O'Hare. One of the
witnesses has looked at them, and declared that neither looks
anything like the object he witnessed on November 07. I allow
for the possibility that they may be part of a disinformation

Now that's just one eyewitness's opinion, others may differ, but Peter Davenport is the guy that got this all started.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 02:53 PM
Isnt it about time you armchair and professional guys realized the futility of your debating all te pics?
If one were to ask me, (which i dont expect they will but)..........
I say why dont we concentrate on trying to get some official confirmation of some kind......?ie.airport or airtraffic logs from the tower.....
Some kind of FAA statement,at least their acknowledgement....
Lobby the airline that is in question to allow their employees to speak up...
Perhaps requests from myriad private emails...
Get some help recruited from the local area to dig into this from all other angles....police reports are possible....
Hopefully, as publicity increases over the incident, other testimony...
How about passenger lists?are they public?
Airport security logs....
Withnesses witnesses!
The picture debate has its place, but is not the only angle of approach available.....
How about Mufon in the Chicago area?Other interested groups??
We need numbers to get this sorted out.....
But most of all we need those who saw, to come forward and Tell....
Aside from the happenings, does it apear to anyone else that we are
getting a large dose of mass sightings lately that are adding up to a realization that cannot be denied by the powers that be.??
Almost as if, tired of waitng for disclosier by those in power,the ETs or whatever, are making the attempt to get the public to acknowledge their existance through these sightings,Which seem to be be coming thick and fast over the whole world !!!
As if they were trying to short circuit those who would be keeping the lid on??
Or is that for another thread?

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:02 PM
I find it funny that UFO's avoid people with SLR cameras and high end telephoto lenses.

I know I carry around my Nikon D200 and 70-200 F2.8 VR all the time, and I could've gotten a nice 10mp shot of the "UFO" at nice range.

Imagine the quality of that.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 03:22 PM
Bergle-I personally have interviewed a witness, last night for a couple of hours. I've talked about it within the thread, so perhaps reading that out would help you see we're doing more then looking at photos.

Witness confirmation is a huge part. Last night's witness gave us her impression that the second photo didnt "seem right", but the first "was IT".

I'm waiting for confirmation of a map I sent to her of her location which would confirm solidly the location in the first UFO shot.

I wouldnt think the airport nor airlines would be very forthcoming in much of the data youre asking about. We can only get what we can.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 05:22 PM
Washington Dulles International Airport located in Dulles, Virginia.
October 7, 2003: A hole in the clouds appears near Dulles Airport.
Photo Credit: Kevin Ambrose

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 05:28 PM
Regarding issues some people have with the comparison of my found photo "congestion", and the first OHare UFO shot:

Firstly, I'd have saved a few days of no sleep, a bottle of Visine, and a lot of aggravation had I just jumped to the conclusion that congestion is directly related to UFO shot 1. I'd have also gotten some pretty good accolades I think for it's discovery and link to the UFO shot.

My problem is I don't give a crap about accolades, I just wanna know what the deal is. Pressure one way or the other from public opinion isn't going to effect me one way or the other. But to explain a bit about the differences, so it's more defined as to why David and I have been up with this image for the many hours?'s a bit of a visual.

Below is an overlay, the first I presented, showing the transformation of "congested", which we'll refer to as "Cgd" from here on out, and the UFO photo. I have however added some circles that point out some evidence that we are likely not looking at the same shot.

(image updated on 1/28/2007)

Before I get to their explanation, I want everyone to note the overall shot. I have paused longer on the UFO shot, and sped up the dissolve to give you a better view. It'll loops so you can stare at the individual photo, or it's referred to areas.

The overall UFO shot, in comparison with Cgd:
Note that the runway turn seems to line up fairly well. Between Cgd and the UFO shot, we see very little movement in this stationary point. This was my guide for aligning the 2 together, and it was also my rotation point. If that point lines up so perfectly,
then why as we progress further right, do things seem to "swell", and shift...and do so with gradual progression.

It's ocular distortion. The UFO image, seems to swell and level towards us as opposed to the Cgd shot. It seems to get worse as we move right. At the right end, we barely match up...and forget being as definitive as the runway turn. The entire UFO shot seems to compress inward progressively. One would have to stretch out the length, and even then you couldn't make everything maintain it's every matching stationary point.

This indicates to David and I that we are not looking at a photo from the same camera, but rather a close proximity of location in shooting. The properties are just too far removed in an overall sense.

Now ok, lets walk from that aspect. Lets look at the circled areas, which remain on top during the cross fade.

A - Within the circle you'll see a small warm light beige color that exists in the UFO shot, but not in Cgd.
B - The most significant area, and David's find, a large orange mark not seen whatsoever in the Cgd shot but only in the UFO one. It
seems to fall directly between the 2 horizon lights from Cgd. It just shouldn't be there.
C - A very small area of warm colored area, again, not seen in the Cgd shot, but only in the UFO shot.
D - Warm brown area seen only in the UFO shot.
E - Small red area seen only in UFO shot.
F - 2 semi-white spots seen only in the UFO shot.

Some of these are rather "in your face" and some are not. But they are there, and I'd say if you look hard enough and adjust your monitor you'll see them. "B" will no doubt jump out at you.

If you'll also take note of the "billboard" seen over what we were calling the "train" you'll note that it seems to compress to the left...scrunch in that direction if you like.

So in essence, there's enough difference in a lot of ways. IF this were exactly the same shot, I'd expect to see items overlay to the letter. They do not. In addition there are small objects not seen in the Cgd shot, but only in the UFO one.

These small changes (or notable ones such as "B")...just think about it. IF this was faked, throwing the ocular distortion out, why would anyone insert these minute changes? It seems way over the top, and again, how far is someone willing to go? To that end, why put them in at all?

David and I also have put time in looking for evidence of cloning out the landing lights of Cgd vs the sky on the UFO shot. We're not seeing cloned areas, nor evidence of it. I had said that the sky in the UFO shot seemed too finely and evenly gradated to me, in that could someone have alpha channel masked out the skyline and composited a new sky in. Seems totally possible to me. That way the hoaxer would eliminate any evidence of cloning over the lights with sky.

After looking at the sky in Lab mode, and examining and auto adjusting levels in the B channel, we see a better view of the subtle dark and lights of the gradation, which shows there's NOT the uniformity of a computer gradation. So an added sky was out.

There is more, however I think this best illustrates the aspects of difference in both shots. Some are pronounced, like the distortion, and some of the circled areas, and some are so subtle it's ridiculous.

It becomes a question of odds. We only have a limited number of pixels, and what we can see. This is some of the differences we see, which tells us we're not looking at the same photo. If they were put in, why. Why the smallest details, the most nearly undetectable shades and colors. I have to go with the odds and say someone is not going to go to that me and speaking only for me, it's stupid and makes no sense in the grand scheme of trying to fake it. That orange blob in circled area "B", does nothing to convince anyone that's a real UFO. It has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

Don't forget, IF the assumption of fake is made, then the hoaxer wouldn't expect us to find his Holy Grail of the congested photo.

So at this point David and I don't believe we're looking at the same shot and these are only some of the reasons. I hope it puts to bed some of the questions regarding both.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by SkepticOverlord]

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 05:50 PM
Well jritzmann, I gotta say you kick @ss at photo analysis. But really though, even if it can be proven without a doubt that isn't the same photo the UO is still too fuzzy and hard to tell exactly what it could be.

I really do believe eyewitness though, and thanks for coming here and telling us what you saw.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:00 PM

Originally posted by 27jd
the UO is still too fuzzy and hard to tell exactly what it could be.

I really do believe eyewitness though

Oh I agree it's hard to see it, but it too has some very interesting qualities, which we'll get to as we go on. "Eyewitness" confirming the direction she saw it and where is a big deal here, as it matches where we think it was in the sky. Thats important, even if the photo aint all that good.

Either way I think there's something to learn. Hopefully we get more, as witness has said MANY people were taking shots, and thats only what she saw...think of how many more there must be.

Anyway I'm taking the night off from this, barring developments...I need a friggin break. Be back in knee deep tomorrow.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:01 PM
Have you tried to print the congestion photo on a inkjet printer and take a photo of the printed page?

Some areas of the noise remind me of an inkjet print, and the difference in colour could also be a result of that. I always thought that the best way to fake a photo is to fake the subject, not the photo itself, and this is a method that has had some famous results like the Cottingley Fairies (edit: apparently).

[edit on 27/1/2007 by ArMaP]

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:27 PM

Originally posted by John Scheldroup
Washington Dulles International Airport located in Dulles, Virginia.
October 7, 2003: A hole in the clouds appears near Dulles Airport.
Photo Credit: Kevin Ambrose

This post seems to have been ignored a bit, but i find it fascinating.

Eyewitness, did the hole in the clouds over O'Hare look like this?

Maybe the O'Hare incident wasn't the first time this has happened. Just the first time someone has noticed.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by fooffstarr]

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:36 PM

Originally posted by fooffstarr
This post seems to have been ignored a bit, but i find it fascinating.

How do holes form in clouds?
A while back Blake Smith from Owen Sound sent me a photograph of a cloud with a hole.
Holes in clouds have been observed and photographed for at least 70 years. Some of the more interesting explanations include: evaporation of clouds by meteors; two winds colliding; flying saucers, atomic explosions and the one I liked was the door to the fourth dimension.

There are two serious explanations. Sometimes invisible falling streaks of ice crystals from higher clouds are intercepted by thin, lower cloud. The ice crystals induce freezing of some of the water droplets, which then fall from the cloud...leaving an almost perfectly circular hole.

[Evidence, also, strongly supports the suggestion that passing aircraft punch holes in thin clouds. Airplane exhaust produces ice particles; in time, these ice crystals become large enough to fall out and eventually evaporate. Also, engine heat and turbulence along the wing tips mixes moist and dry air causing clear holes.]

Most people don't associate airplanes and cloud holes, probably because the process takes 10 to 20 minutes, long after the plane has disappeared.

I'm sure the O'hare hole was caused but what people who were there say caused it, but just a random hole has other explanations...

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:40 PM
I've been a lurker on the website for about a couple of years now, but never felt the need to participate because everybody here is quite knowledgable that I would get the information I was looking for without having to ask. Having said that, I did the exact same thing you just posted Jritz, and have been puzzled over the differences between the two, I was going to post something similar, but was not quite sure how to post it. One thing I did notice, was that coinicidentally, the UFO picture fits perfectly inside the Congestion photo. What are the chances of that? Probably pretty good if it was taken close to the same spot, but still unlikely. If the UFO picture had any objects in it that are not in the Congestion picture, its a smoking gun, BUT there isn't, so you have to look at the differences between the two. How far away, would you say (if it hasn't been posted of course, I might have missed a couple of pages somewhere), is that billboard you are talking about, a couple of miles?

Another thing, I might try working on, would be to make a stereograph of the two images, to see what comes out.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:43 PM
Counter to your impression, and totally erroneous conclusion, i have read the whole damn thread!
I see that there are so many asides and unnessessary posts i had to speak up.
I am no photoshop guru,and take ALL ufo photos wiyth a grain of salt because i have absolutely no way to check em.By the look of the controversey niether do the experts who keep giving opinions on the forum with the conjoined reminder that they could be wrong......
Right or wrong, the incident is witnessed by at least two credible sounding persons.
See this thread.....
What i am trying to state here is that all this BS about whether they are fakes or not, do not ruin the witness credibility.
It IS the witnesses who have provided much needed credbility to the whole story.
Especially ones who are willing to provide their credentials to the mods.
What i am calling for is a little harder than armchair debunking a photo(no offense to the debunkers,also nessessary)and requires active and willing chicago area people as well as those of us able to command inside sources and outside ones.To put some time and effort to communicate with the people who may be silent witnesses up to this point.
I see this incident as an opportunity to work more proactively together on a subject which shows rich promise of forcing the govt to open up its secrecy vaults to us.
Rather than investigate this incident over the net by debunking photos,
organise to investigate this at all possible junctures within the parameters of our means to do so.
I other words, if you can and will.get down to Ohare and start asking around, taking statements and names....
E mail anyone you know was travelling through on that date...
actually co-operatively get involved in tracking down witnesses and even more photos for the debunker squad who are doing such a good job to date....Get on other forums and seek co=operation and info pooling ...
Otherwise this inquiry is bound to be too shallow and it will also be well capable of being discounted and ridiculed....
More work is what im suggesting, and more input from those who really have some.
It is a call for us to rise up to the occaision and the responsibility which we hold like it or not.Because there are few indeed who even follow these things out there,most willing to let others do the thinking and the legwork.,
If you want disclosier then you have to be willing to struggle to get it!
It will not come voluntarily, this we we have to squeeze it out by applying the required pressure...this being common knowledge beyond doubt that ET is here.
I deas anyone, or is this another thread?really bud, no disrespect.......but is there something we can actually do about it besides and in adjunct to,this endless debate?

top topics

<< 62  63  64    66  67  68 >>

log in