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

page: 71
93
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:07 PM
link   
ok, i reproduced them. both are fakes (the new ones from that anonymous poster)

img376.imageshack.us...
img71.imageshack.us...

the original picture used for fakeing was taken from here:
www.geocities.com...

[edit on 28-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe

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.

my internet connection is real slow today...could have debunked it in 5 minutes...max.


[edit on 28-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jritzmann
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)

Well, I would say that weight of similaryti of big structures on that photo much bigger than what you circled. And without doubt I personally think that these photos shows the same location. Maybe they was shot from a little different points, but this not so important.

.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 01:28 PM
link   
With kudos to all the excellent work done by the various photo analysts I sincerely doubt we're going to blow the lid off this story with just the one photo. I believe the entire legit UFO community (including ATS) needs to marshall our resources and put a full-court press on to surface all these other witnesses and their photos. If our witnesses (most especially eyewitness) are credible then there are numerous photos and witnesses out there. If we can attract just a small number out of the shadows we will be able to vet this whole event. It's the only way. One picture isn't going to do it. We need multiple pictures taken from locations that the witness can pinpoint.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:05 PM
link   
I tried to take a photo of the O'Hare traffic congestion photo from my computer's screen to see what it would look like, and this is what I got.

O'Hare test

The image has much distortion because the screen is not flat, it's impossible to align the two photos. The colours were change but the sky looks more like the UFO photo.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by ArMaP
I tried to take a photo of the O'Hare traffic congestion photo from my computer's screen to see what it would look like, and this is what I got.

O'Hare test

The image has much distortion because the screen is not flat, it's impossible to align the two photos. The colours were change but the sky looks more like the UFO photo.

i already tried the same (somewhere in this thread i've posted the results...dunno what the pagenumber is) it didn't work for me either.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   
I wanted to try a printed photo, but my printer does not have any ink since 2003


The next best thing was the photo of the screen.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Armap can you post the photo of your screen (without the animation). I'd like to check how the horizon matches up because there's something bugging me about that in the original photo.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:27 PM
link   

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


First, let us Not assume that just because this "visitor" behaved in manner unlike what we would expect, that Its/Their intent was malevolent. I understand, caution, when dealing with the potential unknown, is wise. But as it has been said "Fear is the mind (reason) killer, I must not fear", that is to say, we must not let fear rule our actions.

Personally, I love the "Gas Station" analogy previously posted.


Put yourself in the "visitor's" position (I'd say "shoes", but who knows if it/they even have "feet"!): You wish to make contact, but you Do Not want your contact to be "startling" to the indigenous population. That might be mis-interpeted as an act of agression by the "natives"; bad form on your part.

So you appear over an apparent center of transport most similar to the form of transport you are employing; hoping that "familiarity" will instill a degree of goodwill. Hoping that "one more boat in the harbor (even if it's a rather odd-looking boat)" wont cause too much of a stir.

Why a "large" public airport? Again, your purpose is not to instill fear, but merely to establish contact; the bigger the airport, the busier, the more likely you are to be accepted. That's why you'll find so many more "unusual characters" in big cities than in small towns.

Why not an Air Force or other military base? Possibly a "bad" prior experience? Maybe You've been able to detect the nature of such installations (by detecting the presence of various munitions, perhaps), and since your mission is intended to be exploratory and peaceful, you fear that appearing at such a place might be mis-interpeted as either intimidation, a challenge of some sort, or possibly, worse, an endorsement of such activity!

By all means, you would want to avoid, as much as possible, the appearance of "Tribal (national) Favoritism": you do not want your point of introduction to be mis-interpeted by others of the species to indicate that you favor one tribe, group, nation over any other.


It is curious that in typing this missive I find that my opinions regarding this incident, and the possible nature of the object's pilot(s)/controllers to be taking a profound "flip-flop".

As soon as it became evident that we were indeed dealing with a true "object", not just some unusual "lights in the sky" or "weather phenomenon", I wanted to believe that "this might be" if not "the one", then at least "one of the Real ones"; the ones that remain unexplained through the years.

But there have been so many disappointments in the past, I did not dare to hope.

I consoled myself, as the testimony trickled in and the amazing! photo analysis efforts progressed (and are Still progressing :up
, ever rolling on, that, at best, we had finally been able to "catch a 'black project' red-handed".

Now, I'm not so sure. Now, with the trepidation of an oft scorned, too-lonely-not-to-try-again lover, I have to admit that I'm begining to believe that what appeared over O'Hare that day, what was witnessed by dozens there that day, was indeed not of Earth.

Why?

It's kinda silly really: All of the world's militaries are male dominated and all share in the mind-set they call "military-strategy", which may, or may not, be related somehow. Suffice to say that this object's behaviour that day was completely opposite of what would be expected of a craft under "military" influence or control. At least as such strategy is understood on this planet.

According to military strategy, as I understand it, if you are Strong, you challenge your oppents, your peers, openly, where they are strongest. You go to their encampments and make your challenge; you do not appear in their market-places, stand silently for a period of time, and then quickly exit!

Similarly, per military strategy, if you are weak, or injured in some way, you attempt to hide from your opponents: again, you do not "hover" about in one of the most open and public places you can find!

All of which leads me to believe that this was no military prototype.

This could, just possibly be The One!



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:27 PM
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.

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.

AND WE AS AMERICANS NEED TO DEMAND THIS INFORMATION NOW!


Like I said in an ealier post... in the case it is ET... How would they know anything about OUR protocols about restricted airspace. If they were hostile they would have done something hostile.

If I went to a distant planet and saw a high volume of traffic going in and out of a location, I would also want to observe that too. I think that is all they were do, observing us.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Folks,

Even though my close friend and associate Jeff Ritzmann has been doing a great job of keeping all of you in the loop with regards to our analysis work on these images, I decided that it was time to jump in, say hello and give everyone an update on the situation.

At this point, having spent some quality time looking very, very carefully at the images which have appeared on ATS, we've been stuck on the "Zero" image, for a variety of reasons. In the last 24 hours, we've had a bit of a combined breakthough/revelation, and I'm going to spell it out as briefly as possible.

In our opinion, there is a very good likelyhood that this is a legitimate image, but one that has been tampered with in order to make it possibly look manipulated. Not fabricated, as in taking the congestion shot and processing it to look turn it into the Zero shot, but instead, manipulated to have anomalies which would create a degree of confusion and uncertainty about specific aspects of the validity of the image. In our analysis, we discovered a very significant issue which was confirmed by Eyewitness (in the conversation Jeff had with her Friday night), but which has not been revealed ANYWHERE in order to maintain a authenticity verification control. This specific finding, along with Eyewitness' corroboration, points towards the image potentially being genuine, and of course, we'd like to be able to speak directly with other witnesses (such as the gentleman who spoke with Peter Davenport) or others who spoke with Jon Hilkevitch from the Chicago Tribune, in order to get their feedback on this specific finding.

Along these lines, we've also found specific, and very curious elements, which seem to indicate that the image has been tampered with, and even though I know you all probably want to know what specifically we're referring to, for the purposes of the same verification control mentioned above, we're gonna have to refrain from giving the specifics, in order to preserve the ability to consider these issues in the analysis of other images which we hope will surface.

For now, Jeff & I will probably stop doing any further analysis on this image, as we feel we've hit an interesting - and frustrating - brick wall, one made of substances known and not completely known. Based on the excellent testimony from Eyewitness, there are reasons to think that there are indeed other images floating around out there, and we're confident that we'll be able to track some of these down for analysis.

I know that perhaps this is not what you all wanted to hear, but Jeff & I are interested in getting some real evidence, and much less into the idea of protecting or defending a specific stance or position with respect to any evidence. Those of you who have heard my podcast (and I'll not mention the name, as per my understanding of ATS rules), know that getting to the bottom of this situation and understanding the true nature of UFOs is my driving priority. Jeff & I met each other through our common interest in debunking the so-called "UFO photos" of a well known religious cult, and realized that we shared similar experiences, opinions and goals. I respect him, and am thrilled that I now count him among my closest friends and confidants.

I'll be less of a stranger here from now on, and I'm sorry that we were not able to confirm the image as either legitimate or fabricated, but that's sometimes how this cookie crumbles.

dB

admin edit: PLEASE go check out David's Podcast at www.theparacast.com


[edit on 28-1-2007 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 28-1-2007 by davidbiedny]

[edit on 1-28-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Here's why I think the "congestion" photo and the UFO photo are one in the same. First of all, at a facility as large as O'Hare, what are the odds of two separate photographs being taken from the exact same place in the terminal focusing on the exact same spot on the horizon? Not to the left of it, not to the right, not higher, not lower, the same focal area. I respect all the graphical analysis done on those two photos by incredibly talented people, but I think it would be too much of a bizarre coincidence.

Also, if the idea was to take a picture of a stationary UFO, wouldn't you put the subject in the center of the frame? And besides that, wouldn't you snap MULTIPLE pictures of the thing? I mean, it IS a UFO after all.

If it was a photograph that accidentally happened to catch a UFO in frame, what exactly was the picture taken of? The insignificant barren end of a runway? I could think of a million other things in an airport that would compel me to whip out my camera.

Also, the UFO's location aligns almost precicely with the lights of the furthest plane in the stack, in the "stack" photo. Another coincidence?

It does not add up logically in any way to me. Occam's razor tells me that the UFO photo is a clever alteration of the "stack" photo. Until other photos surface to cooberate it, that's the way I'm leaning.

-Dave

[edit on 28-1-2007 by D_Hoffman]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 02:59 PM
link   
To you guys jumping the gun a bit and conversing about the intention of the craft location, I would suggest perhaps moving that conversation out of this thread. Its a worthwhile discussion to have but this thread has a real focus on trying to prove the authenticity of the event. I would hate to see that get derailed on a conversation already assuming the event was authentic.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
Armap can you post the photo of your screen (without the animation). I'd like to check how the horizon matches up because there's something bugging me about that in the original photo.

Here you have it, without any cropping.

My test



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:07 PM
link   
Gotta agree with Dave above. Unless there is some specific lookout point or some other position that would encourage photographs from that spot (Like a single window) common sense tells me that you are not going to get two images from the same vantage point that would align up in that manner even subtly.

Anyone around that area know if there is a compelling reason for folks to take pictures from that vantage?

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Mainer]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mainer
To you guys jumping the gun a bit and conversing about the intention of the craft location, I would suggest perhaps moving that conversation out of this thread. Its a worthwhile discussion to have but this thread has a real focus on trying to prove the authenticity of the event. I would hate to see that get derailed on a conversation already assuming the event was authentic.


We're not trying to proof the authenticy of the _EVENT_ (the event was indeed real) but we're trying to proof the authenticy of the photos that have surfaced.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:17 PM
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.

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.


Another possibility - perhaps it was a secret military surveillance craft on an actual mission (not a test flight). To do this over a busy public airport, it would have to be a matter of great importance - maybe monitoring nuclear materials transfer or something like that. But then presumably, the airport management would be notified beforehand. Also, heck of a technological breakthrough to keep quiet about for so long.

Or... could be an ET.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy

We're not trying to proof the authenticy of the _EVENT_ (the event was indeed real) but we're trying to proof the authenticy of the photos that have surfaced.


I respectfully disagree somewhat, true there was some event people have taken notice of, but the exact nature of the event is still under debate. Proving the photographic evidence is part of trying to prove what the event actually is about. Thus far, individuals most people do not know, saw something most others have never seen, in a place most people have never been. So there is still a long road ahead concerning the legitimacy of the event.

Even if the pictures were verified beyond a shadow of a doubt, we would still need to discount any number of other explanations about what it actually *was*. I would hate to see this thread get so caught up in the possibility of the event that we fail to do the required denying of ignorance. Still early in the information gathering phase right now.



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Ran across this about runway use.


Runway 32L is sometimes used for departures in a shortened configuration. Planes access the runway from its intersection at taxiway T10 (common) or taxiway M (not common). This shortens the effective length of the runway but allows operations on runway 9R-27L to continue.


Quoted Wikipedia Article

Sure looks like the congestion photo could have been taken from the T10 position mentioned, from the left side of a plane sitting on on 32L. Planes could be landing on 9R.

Don't plane window have a tinting, which could alter the light balance of the picture slightly.

[edit on 1/28/2007 by roadgravel]



posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
David, thanks for the update and thanks for working with Jeff and ATS in the determination as to the validity of those photo's -- specifically photo #1. We are very, very lucky to have your input in the analysis of those photo's.
Someday, I would love to find out why there was even any tampering done at all on what so far has been qualified as an authentic photograph of the O'Hare sighting. But I'm totally in agreement with all of you that at this point in time, while we are waiting for other photographs of this event to surface, I definitely think it's best to keep some information under wraps for reasons we don't even need to bring up here.
At any rate, keep up the good work! This is by far the most fascinating UFO case I've ever followed up on and I'm telling ya... it keeps getting more and more intriguing as time goes by!





top topics
 
93
<< 68  69  70    72  73  74 >>

log in

join