Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 68
93
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2007 @ 11:49 PM
link   
We are working with folks to get the Tribune Reporter and the TV News guy to help us.


We may also take out an ad in the Tribune asking for people to step forward with photos, accounts etc... At a minimum I would LOVE for more folks who saw this to look at the picture 00000 dropped in our laps so we can get more perspective on it.

My attitude is, NOTHING beats REAL DATA, the more genuine data points the better.

I would also like to THANK "Eyewitness" for having the courage and honor to step forward.

I enjoyed speaking with her on the phone last night and would like to reiterate his/her "privacy" is ASSURED just in case anyone else out there is reading this who may be thinking about stepping forward.


PLEASE don't bother of you're playing games BUT CERTAINLY DO if you were really there, we will NOT divulge your identity unless you agree to it.

That being said, someone who refuses to allow even ATS site admin to vet them will be pretty irrelevant at this point since we have "Eyewitness" who HAS allowed us, JRitzmann and Linda Moulton Howe to talk to her, UNLESS they have a photo.

Be sure to check in on www.earthfiles.com tomorrow (Sunday, 28JAN2007) for Linda's interview with "Eyewitness".


Springer...

[edit on 1-27-2007 by Springer]




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:06 AM
link   
Eyewitness, thank you for coming forward with this. I am fascinated.

I just did a search in my RSS feed (Bloglines) using the keywords "O'hare ufo" and came up with this article:

O'Hare UFO Eyewitness Says Disc Spun Counterclockwise
(Linda Moulton Howe's site)

You are "Jane Doe" in this article, right?

It's an interesting read, tying your experience all together. I just wanted to check with you and ask if you were quoted accurately?

And if I may ask you another question... how did this event affect you personally?

If I experienced such a clear sighting I think I would freak out on many levels...! I imagine I would have an entirely new perspective on everything.

Are you going through any wild emotions about this, or are you feeling pretty calm?

Thanks again!

ETA
Springer, sorry, I didn't see your post before mine. It really was a coincidence that I found the article elsewhere. (Just wanted to let you guys know since this is my first post here). Anyway, the article is up already and it's good.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by air5five]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:38 AM
link   
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



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:06 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:22 AM
link   
Just a note to all, my webspace bandwidth is nearly gone, so I've had to remove the images I been working on and posting here.

I'll have these all reposted soon as I can where I can. They are safe and sound on my harddrive. Most I think have already saved them or seen them, so just gimme some time to work it out.

(I thought I'd posted this before but I'm exhausted and I may not have hit the post button....anyway, again...)
At any rate, this image is in conjunction with the circled differences between the UO shot and the congested shot overlay (which was erroring and is being corrected)

This one is a FULL uncropped overlay of both shots. Now, what I did was line up the long tapered yellow/white object in both photos background, towards the left. While we do not know what this object is, it is not a train as thought early on. It appears in a few other photos of this runway unrelated to the UFO or congestion shot. We'll call this object "the tube"

You'll note the tube object doesnt move in either shot. Note the movement in the runway, the buildings, and especially the little white light on the right side, which jumps like a jackrabbit. Remember what I said before, the distortion to me, progresses more the further we go right.



IF these were taken with the same camera, this wouldnt happen.

Now, I also asked "eyewitness" about the image where I overlayed the OHare labeled map with the Google Earth view of the airport, and where I subsequently found the runway and the photographers location, and a rough approximation of where the UO was. I asked her based on her location, if this is where she thought the UO would be whe she saw it. She remarked I had it pegged to that area "within a matter of feet". Thanx to her so much for the patience ...again.

So, this begs the question: IF this is a hoaxed photo using congested as a composite layer as some jump to claim, despite all the differences shown, how does a hoaxer pick a photo off the net to hoax a shot that coinsides with a witnesses' location of where the object was? A witness that wasnt even known at the time?

The more that connects the more intrigued I am by it.

Bedtime for me. G'nite


[edit on 28-1-2007 by jritzmann]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:16 AM
link   
Eyewitness. . .

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



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:38 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:57 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   
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...



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:26 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:52 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:04 AM
link   
I would even put up a couple of hundred bucks for this. Count me in.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Ace_SD]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:07 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:16 AM
link   
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.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:47 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:54 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:03 AM
link   
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!



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:15 AM
link   
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?



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:21 AM
link   

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?"



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 07:31 AM
link   
We just put up a Craig's List ad asking for witnesses...
chicago.craigslist.org...





new topics

top topics



 
93
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join