wow, who would have thought. this sighting has gotten pretty big and important.

lets just hope that more witnesses come forward with info and pics.

fm

Hullo all - and a special thankyou to 'Eyewitness'

I've just joined this forum because I am very interested in this O'Hare event and the momentum it is gaining. In his news reports Jon Hilkevitch mentions how many emails he gets from the public so I emailed him with some encouragement to keep on the story and not let it slide out of the public arena. Interestingly my email was repeatedly refused so I emailed the Public Editor to ask it to be forwarded. I have also asked members of my local UFO research group to contact him with support.

The appearance of this UFO almost seems deliberate - such a busy place so full of highly credible witnesses that know all about aircraft - creating what should be a big question mark about why more fuss wasn't made of this breach of airspace.

I have every hope that Hilkevitch and 'Eyewitness' will continue to contribute to the momentum of this event. Hilkevitch is the sort of person that people will find trustworthy and listen too. 'Eyewitness', with her background in news media, is also highly articulate and credible and not being presently employed by the mainstream media she may feel less constrained to come forward than others.

Eyewitness. . .

What was your stance on UFO's/EBE's before you saw this object at O'hare?

Maybe we could start an ATS fund where we could pitch in a dollar or 2 towards getting a decent sized well-written ad printed in the Chicago Tribune requesting witnesses to come forward with info and pics.

Also if we become a little more proactive we could spread the word requesting more information to be released be it from witnesses or the FAA or the airport or whatever. By that I mean we could contact radio stations, make posts on websites not necessarily related to paranormal activity such as personal blogs, CNN forums, or what have you. I don't know what the current atmosphere in the Chicago area is currently regarding this incident but I don't think posts on ATS alone are going to get the job done. Just my 2 cents.

With all this info coming out from eyewitness testimony and photo analysis, the photo 1 is becoming more intriguing.

Im ALL for this.

Springer. . is there a way for fellow ATSers to contribute to the effort of getting an ad in the Tribune asking for witnesses to come forward?

I know that Billy Corgan paid 10,000 in the Chicago Trib. for a full page ad announcing the reunion of the Smashing Pumpkins (obsessed fan here). So please let us know how we can help your efforts. . . .

Who can I make a check out to?

[edit on 28-1-2007 by amongus]

The idea has been tossed about. My plan and hope is that in the interest of journalism Mr. Hiclevich will be willing to do an article in the Tribune which is much better than an ad and doesn't cost us anything.

In the event that fails we will cover whatever costs are needed to get this story MORE GENUINE DATA, like we are getting from Eyewitness.

More as the situation develops.

Springer...

Thanks Springer. I hope that the article comes to fruition. . in the event that it does not, I'm sure you can count on the majority of us here in this thread to give a donation to the cause.

What do you all think about the idea that if this object was infact ET in nature ,do you think it might have appeared to maybe warn us of something thats gonna happen in Chicago in the near future.This thought came into my head yesterday and has been bugging me since.Am i just being paranoid or what?

I would even put up a couple of hundred bucks for this. Count me in.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Ace_SD]

jritzmann - i used photoshop and overlayed the image. i really can't find anything that would lead me to believe they are two unique shots. the variances are so slight, they could have occured from compression.

i used photoshop to overlay the ufo photo over the original, and i was able to get a pretty accurate overlay (as have you). i don't have the swelling on the right that you seem to get. i believe with enough patience, you could use the transform tool enough to rotate and skew the picture to perfectly match the overlay shot. the only difference i get of course is that the slivers of blacks on the horizon shot widen, but in a blurred, pixelated way. the ufo photo is obviously horribly compressed.

also remember that there is no exif data available on the ufo photo. if it is a hoax, he/she could have simply edited the image in photoshop or whatever, and snapped a picture of his computer monitor with a camera phone. that could further explain the compression varience between the two photos.

(edited: i typoed exit instead of exif, lol)

[edit on 28-1-2007 by bizone]

in the interest of ruling out a hoax by trying to reproduce it...

has anyone tried taking a pic off the net, manipulating it, then printing it and scanning it as an original?

just a thought.

Eyewitness, thank you so much for coming forward about this sighting and hopefully others who saw that UFO above O'Hare will eventually come forward too.



[edit on 28-1-2007 by Palasheea]

Originally posted by Damocles
has anyone tried taking a pic off the net, manipulating it, then printing it and scanning it as an original?

Scanning it may give a image good enough to see it was a print, taking a picture of a printed page may give a result more like the photo we have been looking at.

My printer has run out of ink for 4 years ago, so I am unable to try it for myself.

I just want to remind this board and to also echo those sentiments expressed by others on this board too, that that UFO at O'Hare was flying in restricted airspace over one of the most busiest airports on the planet whereby putting hundreds of lives in jeopardy due to the potential of colliding with any number of commercial airliners coming in and out of that airport at the time when it was seen.

The fact that this UFO was flying in RESTRICTED AIRSPACE, possibly could indicate that it was doing so with HOSTILE INTENT where it's presence up there that day should be interpreted as outright INTIMIDATION on their part.

Whomever was controlling that aircraft allowed it to hover over that airport for a good 15 minutes or longer in complete defiance of those national security and safety rules and regulations set-up by our nations highest authorities.

We as American citizens have a right to KNOW where that aircraft was from and who or what is controlling them.

We as Americans have a right to know why the FAA and other governmental organizations are not investigating this sighting.

AND WE AS AMERICANS NEED TO DEMAND THIS INFORMATION NOW!

I guess I'll throw my hat into the ring in support of jritzmann's opinion of the photograph. I don't have the experience to add anything to the points he's already demonstrated but there's one thing that's glaringly obvious to me and everyone should be able to see it. The sky is very different in both photographs and I don't believe it's possible to alter that digitally - without pasting in a whole new sky at least.

Here's what I mean.

In the "congested" photo you have a sky that's bright blue at the top, and appearing to be darker on the horizon.



In the "UFO" photo you have a sky that's pale gray at the top with a band of darker gray on the horizon.



If these were the same two photographs, it should be possible to match the hue of the skies and reproduce the effect in the "UFO" photo.



But it's clear that you can't. Even though the sky in the "congested" photo appears brighter at the top, the saturation levels of the pixels are roughly the same and you end up with a uniform brightness level.

See what I mean... jelly bean?

Originally posted by Palasheea
The fact that this UFO was flying in RESTRICTED AIRSPACE, possibly could indicate that it was doing so with HOSTILE INTENT where it's presence up there that day should be interpreted as outright INTIMIDATION on their part.

or... they just thought it was a gas station.

"Marvin, there's a gas station. For chrissake will you PLEASE stop and ask for directions?"