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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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!