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: 66
<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:46 PM

I’ll admit I haven’t read much of this thread, but I have tried to follow your posts and some of what eyewitness has to say. So I apologize in advance if I ask questions already addressed, or otherwise, whose answer should be obvious on the basis of previous discussion. (It’s a lot of pages, ya know?

Concerning your dissolving comparison image…

I took screen captures of your image, and this is what I see:

How is that not the same image as the one below?

admin edit: removed "blended image" so as to avoid confusion...

Am I missing something?

[edit on 1-27-2007 by Springer]

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by 27jd
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...

Possibly, but i just thought it may be related because it was over an international airport.

Logical explanations hold out though as we have no more information on it
Thanks for the source as well!

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:56 PM
loam, the Congestion photo is not completely faded out.


posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 06:59 PM
Yup that looks like it's just an intermediate layer, that or the animation is bleeding... if you look at the original image those landing lights aren't there.

It's also interesting to point out that if you rotate the image to level the horizon, the object looks more like seen at perspective than tilted.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:03 PM

Originally posted by apc
It's also interesting to point out that if you rotate the image to level the horizon, the object looks more like seen at perspective than tilted.

Yup. Thats an interesting facet too.

Again as I said earlier there's some things that a witness who was present there for the sighting told me that I wont divulge yet, it's going to be invaluable for weeding out crap should any more come along. That too is adding to my interest in photo 1.

Loam-other folks are right, youre not looking at simply photo one or congestion, you're seeing a half meld between the 2. I think it'd be good to remove that so no one gets any ideas that it's representative of anything...we dont wanna confuse issues. Thanx

[edit on 27-1-2007 by jritzmann]

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Quasar
loam, the Congestion photo is not completely faded out.

Ok, but he does say:

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.

I'm pretty sure that's what I got. Go see for your self. It pauses longest on that shot.

Is it a mistake?

EDIT: I see your response above.
Thanks for the reply.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by loam]

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:23 PM
One thing I thought was quite odd, too, is the smiley face thats below and to the left of the UFO.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:38 PM

Originally posted by Quasar
One thing I thought was quite odd, too, is the smiley face thats below and to the left of the UFO.

how is that a smiley face. I can't see how you can get that out of that pic.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 07:58 PM

Originally posted by funky monk

Originally posted by Quasar
One thing I thought was quite odd, too, is the smiley face thats below and to the left of the UFO.

how is that a smiley face. I can't see how you can get that out of that pic.

You can't see the smiley face... it is right there... plain as day... lol.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:00 PM

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:17 PM
Hi again... I sent the lovely, talented and ever so sweet jritzmann my best guestimate of my positions and the UFO's position, as well as takeoff direction, marked... will try to answer a few questions now.

UM Gazz, I thought they were getting ready to say hello right there and then.

fooffstarr, I thought that photo (the Dulles area cloud hole) was worth mentioning, too... verrrry similar, indeed, except that the ORD one was fairly straight up, and slightly angling towards me and left) --- the Dulles cloud hole seems nearly perpendicular to the ground. But suffice it to say, after what I saw at O'Hare, it wouldn't exactly shock me to discover that some-one? -thing? was snooping around yet another airport.

I didn't know about the Aurora, IL, sighting, also on 6 November... will try to look up information on that one, as either we had quite the little nomad on our hands that day, or the skies were a bit "friendlier" than usual.

MrPenny, I thought exactly the same thing, about people not knowing how to download phone photos to their computers, then how to upload from there to here. Most of my friends with cell cams tell me they have no idea as to how to do this. Again, I just encourage anyone who has photos from this incident to release them. Personal anonymity is fine, although I've felt completely safe about having my confidentiality maintained by the moderators here. Just please... figure out the way to upload them, or send them to Mr, Hilkovich at the Trib, or to Peter Davenport, or to the talented photo staff here, via the moderators. Please.

mythatsabigprobe, from my perspective and that of a few others who saw this object, we tend to feel more that the mainstream media are making a mole hill out of a mountain... and yours is my favorite nic here so far.

amongus, this isn't the first UFO I've seen, but this was certainly the most detailed and profound one... the others didn't make me rush out to tell my tale, but this one has brought me around to that. I'm open as to what may be piloting this craft... but that it was a craft I have no doubt whatsoever. And given that the take-off would, given our currently extrapolated technological level, pretty much turn a human's body to mush. I don't really think it was piloted by humans.

I did feel a brief, light tingling no more than a second or two before the thing took off and as it passed through the clouds ahead and tp the left of me, but it was such a subtle thing I can't say with certainty that it was a result of an electrical or EG phenomenon.

My flight crew friend said that they were not informed of the reason for the brief delay, but that someone did ask if they'd "seen anyything unusual." The crew was not questioned by FAA or airline officials, but again, at that time I doubt if damage control had gone beyond the ramp areas and runways.

I'll stay around here for a few hours to answer questions, if you have them.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:23 PM
Please note --- I haven't posted often enough here to respond to U2Us except to mods, so please pardon me for not responding... but thank you very much for your personal words. (This counts towards my 20-posts-to-be-allowed-to-reply-to-U2Us, so soon, soon... lol)

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link" border=0>

One of the things that I find rather revealing from the apparent coincidental alignment of the two photos is that whoever was controlling the ufo placed it right in the corridor that was being used by planes that were landing. No wonder some of those flights were kept in a holding pattern. If the ufo was intelligently controlled then whoever was controlling it could have positioned it in an area where it would not have obstructed the planes landing at O'hare. There is alot of room to position a ufo that is just hovering but out of all that space it had to hover right in the lane used for landings. It seems like a deliberate disruption of operations at the airport. That says something about the occupants of the ufo and not just the object itself.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:32 PM
Hi, I've been lurking here for a while... Sifting through much of the debate and observations. I just wanted to reply and point out how ridiculous the analysis of the "congestion" photo is. i finally joined, feeling to compelled to argue this.

Originally posted by jritzmann

How can you possibly look at this comparison shot and come to the conclusion that it is not derived from the same original image? It would be virtually impossible for two people to randomly take that shot twice with the exact same composition. the fact that we have the same exact congestion (6 plane lights) visible on both pictures is enough to close the book on that photo for me.

the reason you see slight varients between the two photos is because of compression. do i need to go into detail on what file compression is? the "swelling" and color varients pointed out are exactly what happens during photo compression.. it's also worth noting that compression would help hide any unnatural alterations done to the photo.

if you cannot see the UFO photo is the same as the congestion, you need to adjust your monitor.

i'm not debunking the indicent, only the photo.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by loam
Is it a mistake?

Yeah Loam actually I see what it's's sticking on the last frame before the end just before a total opacity on the UFO shot. Sorry. I dont know why the hell it's doing that. I'm gonna try and upload it again and see what gives.

Needless to say those half toned lights from congested are not there like that.

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:36 PM

Originally posted by ArMaP
Have you tried to print the congestion photo on a inkjet printer and take a photo of the printed page?

Speed up that slide show, will we see the ufo appear to
slide left toward the center then back out sort of like
a pendulum where if a mirror were concave at the
center... objects appearing to come toward the viewer
give quite the opposite. The faster the conversion takes
place so the eye brain switches can't keep up the more
illusion of things moving sliding with each rise and fall

Things standing out on those outer edges appear to
stand still, the rate of return to positive makes things
standing on the inside appear to fall in toward the
center faster then those things standing on the edges.

The rate at which this center plane goes positive or negative
somehow sees if a person standing in front of the funny mirrors
will be skinny or fat, which is the rate of rise and fall the
eye-brain just can't keep up so things tend to slide.


posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:42 PM
Biz-no I doubt I need a lesson, but thanx.

Compression figures in but not to swell and shift/and slight skew an image. If it were anything to do with compression issues I'm sure Biedny or I would have mentioned it. If you want to argue with him thats totally your perogative.

I have noticed all the things you have as well, but there are differences in the properties and relationships to stationary objects that dont add up to compression.

Here's another member's crossfade showing the whole of both shots, note the middle of the horizon. Little more then compression going on.

[edit on 27-1-2007 by jritzmann]

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:44 PM

Were you able to determine if the ufo was positioned in line with a landing strip? And after it left were the planes descending through the space that the ufo had occupied?

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 08:48 PM
Due to the further debunking attempts requiring withholding certain info, am I asking too much with:

Was the "Eyewitness" UFO was over the terminals and/or to NW of them vs out to the southeast - out past 4R?

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 09:01 PM
Skyway and roadgravel, I couldn't really see the runways wwhere I was, because there was a low building between them and us, but knowing the airport somewhat I actually figured it was up at the far end of the main runways near the terminal and concourses there, which would indeed put it in or quite close to the position jritzmann has located it on a satmap of O'Hare. He didn't show me that map until after I had already given him all my information as to personal identity and sighting particulars. The map jritzmann has shows the location better than I can tell you... but I'd say basically that it was slightly to the SE of the southernmost runways... those runways angle up in a northwesterly direction, somewhat up towards where I was watching... it did angle in the direction the runway goes, but only slightly off of vertical.

I am a bit directionally challenged, and am trying to remember compass directions based on jritzmann's map, so I actually might confuse things compasswise from time to time, but I indicated my positions on the map that I sent to jritzmann, so that should help clear things up a fair bit. It would all have been much much easier if the maps had had "north" facing up, lol.

new topics

top topics

<< 63  64  65    67  68  69 >>

log in