Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 70
93
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Palasheea

Originally posted by Reptilian_Queen
I'm just wondering here, but why would this alleged UFO be so interested in a civilian airport?


This is a very good question and I would like more information on this too.

I mentioned before that because it was up there for more than 15 minutes in restricted airspace over that airport whereby potentially jeopardizing hundreds of lives, we cannot rule out that just by being there, its message was one of HOSTILE INTENT -- perhaps a message of warning or perhaps even as a power tactic to show that our governments' rules and regulations about flying in such area's mean nothing at all to them!

If they wanted to appear more benevolent where we would not be forced to make those conjectures I mentioned above, then why didn't they just fly over some place like an NFL game?? -- in short, some place with a lot of potential witnesses that was NOT LOCATED IN RESTRICTED AIRSPACE -- a restricted airspace, btw, that also just happens to be one of the busiest airports in the world! It was not like it flying over the restricted airspace over and around the White House, for example, where there's hardly any air traffic at all; it was flying in very hazardous sky's.

We should be very concerned and not ignore that perhaps there was a deeper message being conveyed by 'them' by flying over that airport like they did last Nov.


Well, I chatted with my dad, who was in the military and I've done a cursory Google search and I guess apparently near O'Hare there is a military base close by that's kind of an out of the way, unknown base. Maybe some in depth research into the area in and around O'Hare might clarify things?




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Maybe the UFO were time travelers and they wanted to stop / delay a flight that would cause a change in the entire outcome of our future!


Or maybe not



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   
I keep having problems with the location pegged for the object here at ATS. Has anyone else thought about this. Here is some info from user Eyewitness.


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.


EyeWitness seems to agrees with map placement determined by believed area of photo 1 but maybe confussed a bit.


it was probably fairly exactly where the arrow ends... it was hard for me to get that much perspective, since the difference between the red dot and where the red arrow ends, over the terminal itself, was all pretty much the same at my distance and in my line of sight. My best guess would be that it was closer to being over the terminal or concourse building (where the arrow ends) than over the runway itself.


That's over a US Post office building, ins't it, an Irving Park or some other road.


it was really hard for me to tell exactly where it was in relation to the buildings at the SW corner. My best view of that was actually when I was in traffic, and I had to keep looking back and forth between traffic, road turns and the object. All I could tell for sure was that it was over that southwestern area, and from what I knew of the airport, that put it down the line of that one outer runway and over towards the one terminal/concourse area.


Object could be seen while driving north on Mannhein, so it would seem it would have to be out west or southwest of the terminals.


as I came into the airport area (I was coming from the east), the object was almost directly ahead of me --- sort of at an 11:30 position, if you know what I mean.


That's west or southwest of terminals.

In the Earthfiles interview, the object was estimated at 1/4 mile away. The terminal complex looks at least that wide east to west.

Sounds like the object is no farther then the end runway 9R, or the middle of the 32L - 14R runway, which would be by the terminals. I think the buildings in the background are the cargo area. The white / yellow long object in background are buidlings there. Anyone ever been to the cargo area?





[edit on 1/28/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 10:56 AM
link   
Good stuff you guys have going about this O'Hare incident. I just signed up today after having read this O'Hare thread for the last couple of weeks. Never had been a UFO person actually. I'd always given it a 1 in a 100 chance that UFO sighted by people (aside from hoaxes) were actually "piloted" or "controlled" by intelligent species outside of earth.

But after this UFO incident, and after seeing many a UFO documentaries on YouTube and seriously thinking about this phenomena, I now give it almost a 50/50 chance that in fact a fraction of these UFOs are truly extraterrestrial. Some of the more notable ones are the 1986 large UFOs over Alaska seen by Japanese Airline flight 1628, testimony by Gordon Cooper (Apollo Astronaut), Soviet military officials, etc.

I've also have found Eyewitness' posts here very intriguing. If she is in fact an actual eyewitness (and at this point, I do believe her), we all thank her not only for coming forward, but simply being very patient and thoughtful with all her responses.


apc

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reptilian_Queen
I'm just wondering here, but why would this alleged UFO be so interested in a civilian airport?

Taking into account the obvious assumptions and probabilities, I'm still of the opinion that this was a man-made prototype. Most likely US but possibly Russian. With that in mind, the most logical conclusion as to the purpose of this presence was a real-world test of visibility. An airport is a heavily radar and visually populated area. What better place to test a new military aircraft? To test new stealth technologies? To see what effect the propulsion system would have on real-world concealability? There's only so much testing you can do in the lab. To really demonstrate the efficacy of a design, you have to play outside.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:21 AM
link   
I also am very grateful that Eyewitness came on to this board to introduce herself and give us her personal testimony of that sighting. I think all of us feel very honored and privileged to be the first ones to hear her account ----- and need I remind anyone here that we are making history at this very moment by participating in this monumental most in-depth thread on this unprecedented UFO sighting.

Eyewitness comes across as an exceptionally articulate and intelligent person where somehow I feel that it was just meant to be that she be there at the time of that sighting to report it to all of us in such an eloquent manner. There's no way anyone could not believe her account of it.

The fact that she's allowed herself to be interviewed by phone by the Administrators of this board including JR and Linda Moulton Howe, was a very gracious gesture on her part because it shows that she knows how important that information that she's sharing with us is --- and that it's not only important to us, but to the world!

As witness to a large triangle UFO myself, I was able to identify closely with so many of those details she shared with us in her Earthfiles interview and I can tell you that her descriptions of what those things look like are right on the mark! This is why I believe everything she's saying as there's no way she would know about some of those details that she described to us about that UFO unless she saw it herself.

I'm hoping that by her coming forward and reporting her eyewitness account of that sighting at O'Hare, others who were there that day and saw that UFO also, will be inspired to come forward and share with us their accounts here on this board too.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by apc

Originally posted by Reptilian_Queen
I'm just wondering here, but why would this alleged UFO be so interested in a civilian airport?

Taking into account the obvious assumptions and probabilities, I'm still of the opinion that this was a man-made prototype. Most likely US but possibly Russian. With that in mind, the most logical conclusion as to the purpose of this presence was a real-world test of visibility. An airport is a heavily radar and visually populated area. What better place to test a new military aircraft? To test new stealth technologies? To see what effect the propulsion system would have on real-world concealability? There's only so much testing you can do in the lab. To really demonstrate the efficacy of a design, you have to play outside.


Yeah, but right over O'Hare?? I would think they could sufficiently test this over their own (secret?) bases with radar and traffic to test....well, whatever it was they were testing. Or even over a small municipal airport that has decent traffic?

That's still the thing that hits me hard. Why over such a busy airport - alien or not?

Makes no sense to me.

Hydden



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Interesting, from the Anonymous Posts page...


Original Anonymous Post By: anon_92270
This anonymous post is in response to ATS thread: O'Hare Airport UFO Sighting -- UPDATE: Photos & Analysis

I was there and took these two photos with my cell phone. Poor quality but best I could do at the time. Believe or not. I want no more to do with UFOs and being harrassed by THEM.


img253.imageshack.us...
img175.imageshack.us...



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:38 AM
link   
The only problem that I see with these two new photos is that the craft's positioning in the sky seems to shift from one pic to the next, not only in lateral positioning, but the craft seems to have altered its altitude in the sky as well. It appears that two pictures were taken close to one another - the terminal and plane (on the left side of 2nd picture) are the same.

Based on testimonies that we have heard, the craft did not move at all - was completely stationary- until it shot up straight into the clouds, producing the hole.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by MachXX]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:45 AM
link   
It also appears much larger and lower than witnesses have reported. I have a feeling the undoctored version of these pics will be located on google eventually also.

BTW, it says "OIA Employee" on the post. Chigago O'Hare is "ORD"...



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
It's this part of his message that says it all...

"I want no more to do with UFOs and being harrassed by THEM."

hmmmmm, he sounds a little nutty. lol Could be that 15 yr. old prankster again.

It's strange that this NEW person even knows about the Anonymous board here. I've been here for several months now and even I had trouble finding a link to it just now as I was searching for that.

I didn't even know such a board existed until I filled out that questionnaire the Administrators sent to all members here last week about if we liked the new design of this forum or not.





[edit on 28-1-2007 by Palasheea]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Things just keep getting curiouser and curiouser with the case.

P.S. I never received that questionnaire in my U2U box.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by MachXX
Based on testimonies that we have heard, the craft did not move at all - was completely stationary- until it shot up straight into the clouds, producing the hole.

[edit on 28-1-2007 by MachXX]


That's not exactly correct, there have been some who have said there was some oscillation, some who have said it appeared to wobble and some who have said it was stationary until it "shot" through the clouds.

I can see, based on the common report of "it being hard to focus on" how some would see motion while others may not.

That being said, these two images don't seem to match much of anything reported, too big and too much lateral movement like you said.

Not to mention when I look at these in a simple image program they sure look like they've been "added" to me.
But I am certainly NOT qualified to know if that's the case.

Springer...



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Those two anonymous photos may have been taken at the time that the ufo arrived at O'hare. The ufo wasn't always just hovering over the airport. It had to have arrived at some earlier time and that may be when the anonymous photos were snapped. However, this ufo looks different than the ufo in photo 1 because it is much more streamlined.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:50 PM
link   
The first thing I found strange about those 2 photos is the fact that they do not have the same size, one is 386x242 and the other 408x259.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
pic 1 is a fake

here's the google pic:
www.geocities.com...

pic 2 is the same, just another part of it. i can reproduce them if you like...?

just mirrored and then the hoaxer added the "ufo"

[edit on 28-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
That's not exactly correct, there have been some who have said there was some oscillation, some who have said it appeared to wobble and some who have said it was stationary until it "shot" through the clouds.

I can see, based on the common report of "it being hard to focus on" how some would see motion while others may not.

That being said, these two images don't seem to match much of anything reported, too big and too much lateral movement like you said.

Not to mention when I look at these in a simple image program they sure look like they've been "added" to me.
But I am certainly NOT qualified to know if that's the case.

Springer...




Could it be possible that the sighting reports themselves and the pictures are in fact a government misinformation tactic?

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Reptilian_Queen]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 12:58 PM
link   
that's a great point. although as you said there is still a slight gradient in the congestion photo. that gradient stands out even more with the photo compressed (i've tested). and i'm admittedly reaching here now, as it is not as easy as i originally thought to duplicate our "ufo" shot from our "congestion" shot... we still have the anomaly of two photos that line up quite nicely, apparently taken from the exact same place, at the exact same line of sight, and obviously with the same overall weather conditions.

can we pinpoint the shot where this was taken from? someone needs to find it and snap a few shots. i'm willing to bet that we can't take a shot that lines up as well even if we try. not without doing comparitive analysis on site and retrying a few times.


Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
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 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
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 still very doubt about "O'Hare UFO" photo n 1.

First of all - location of that "UFO" is wrong - not over Gate C17.
Here is link to my research about location from where was taken 1st photo. Will be good to hear your point of view about that.

Next - similarity with water (or another liquid) drop.
Here is water drop example and comparison with "O'Hare UFO" first photo.

Or there was 2 UFOs over O'Hare?

.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
pic 1 is a fake

here's the google pic:
www.geocities.com...

pic 2 is the same, just another part of it. i can reproduce them if you like...?

just mirrored and then the hoaxer added the "ufo"

[edit on 28-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]


And there you have it. What was that, 10 minutes to prove the hoax? Come on you photoshop kiddies you need to lift your game.





new topics

top topics



 
93
<< 67  68  69    71  72  73 >>

log in

join


Help ATS Recover with your Donation.
read more: Help ATS Recover With Your Contribution