It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 76
99
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 09:13 PM
link   
I'm going off now... I'll do my best to be on sometime tomorrow (probably late afternoon central US time, and maybe again tomorrow night, to catch up with questions. Again, thank you all so much for your interest, your insight, and your questions. Have a good night :-)




posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 09:24 PM
link   
I do hope that something positive comes out of this one. I hope that we find a good pic that can finally hit the nail right threw the medias head.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:12 AM
link   
Wow Eyewitness! I'm so grateful you came back and patiently answered our questions yet again.

I know you are being bombarded with so many things but I hope you'll forgive three more questions (I'm strictly limiting myself)... you must understand that after years of following UFO stories that seem to have led to hopeless dead ends it's mind-blowing to possibly, maybe, be closer to "a truth" and this is making me feel a little greedy - ignoring politeness just a tiny bit.

1) Ok. First, did you chat with any of the other witnesses near you when you and your friend parked to look at this thing? Did you exchange incredulous expressions, or a simple "Wow" or anything? I'm trying to gage how obvious it was to the other witnesses that you all were possibly seeing something "otherworldly."

2) Second - is there any chance that your friend will come forward and share his/her experience here or at another trustworthy UFO reporting site?

3) Last: have you ever seen a UFO before? If yes, would you mind telling us about that sighting?

Of course I will understand if you prefer not to answer any of this.

And thanks again!



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 12:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eyewitness
Don't make me start staying up late to listen to C2C... I am just so sure that Art Bell is a disinfo person, lol.


I listened to C2C for entertainment... I would say 95% of that show is garbage... but still fun to listen too. They never question their guests, the just let them talk. I believe a show a few days back had 2 people with schizophrenia talking crazy...



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:10 AM
link   
Where can I hear Springer on C2C? I'm a member of the Coast to Coast site but I don't see Springer's name in any of the interviews.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:35 AM
link   
This has been a really fascinating thread, and I too want to thank Eyewitness for having the courage to come forward. This case has renewed my interest in the subject of UFOs.

It seems that sudden acceleration is a hallmark of ufos. I suspect that G forces may not be an issue - maybe they're manipulating, or "warping" space around them, which would account for their amazing speed & manueverability. A good book that goes into the nitty gritty of ufo physics is Unconventional Flying Objects by Paul R. Hill, a retired NASA scientist who had his own sighting.

I am getting a little frustrated with the aliens, if that is indeed what they are. Enough - land already!!


ORB

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Analyzing 00000's pic with Photoimpact Pro, I see 4 or 5 small orbs underneath the main disc, and a couple are actually blocking a full view of the lower left of the disc. That and a definite distortion field completely surrounding the disc. Anybody else confirm?



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ace_SD
Where can I hear Springer on C2C? I'm a member of the Coast to Coast site but I don't see Springer's name in any of the interviews.


He was referred to by his real name ( God forbid! ), M Al.

www.coasttocoastam.com...



[edit on 29-1-2007 by lost_shaman]

[edit on 1-29-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 02:22 AM
link   
Thanks.



Originally posted by lost_shaman

Originally posted by Ace_SD
Where can I hear Springer on C2C? I'm a member of the Coast to Coast site but I don't see Springer's name in any of the interviews.


He was referred to by his real name ( God forbid! ), M Al.

www.coasttocoastam.com...



[edit on 29-1-2007 by lost_shaman]

[edit on 1-29-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
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.


Oh believe me, I had not made that statement out of fear. I'm more curious than fearful of the fact an alleged UFO was seen observing a civilian airport and not a military airbase.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Reptilian_Queen
I'm more curious than fearful of the fact an alleged UFO was seen observing a civilian airport and not a military airbase.


Let's not jump to any conclusions.

UFO's have been seen over AF Bases, and Civilian Airports all over the world for years and years. It's not like this is something new that never happened before.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 04:11 AM
link   
I haven't seen this mentioned or posted yet and I think it's relevant to this discussion.

Jon Hilkevitch, the Chicago Tribune reporter who reported this story on January 1 and a TV reporter from CLTV Oak Brook had a pre-newscast discussion that was filmed. As described on the google video page where I found the video below:


"The following video was leaked from a news room, showing unedited discussion of the Chicago O'Hare Airport UFO case among news broadcasters."


At 1:27 in the video, the reporter asks about photos of this event. Jon Hilkevitch replies:


"...I'm told the pilots on that plane that was being pushed back - uh you know I said in that story that they opened the windscreen and stuck their head out - now I'm being told that one of them had a digital camera and snapped some pictures... "

"...so United is not playing ball with me and, uh, FAA have expanded my (folio?) to include the flight plan which might include the pilot's names and I'm trying to work with the union as well..."


(That is my transcription so blame me for inaccuracies!)

When the video first starts it seems hokey and fake, but give it a second, I'm sure it's the real deal:


Google Video Link


[edit on 29-1-2007 by air5five]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eyewitness
As Jeff so aptly phrased it when we discussed this over the phone, it would have turned any human pilot to soup, given what we reasonably think current levels of human technology would allow. Had to be terrific g-strain involved... so much that I don't think even lying in some sort of movement-compensating couch would spare the bones all that much.


Not at all dear...these guys manipulate gravity force...their moving technology is based on gravity manipulation and not the primitive action-reaction law..so be sure if u have been in their craft you wouldn't feel anything ...G-Force doesn't work inside an antigravity field..( basic Phisics)

[edit on 29-1-2007 by Cybernative]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cybernative
Not at all dear...these guys manipulate gravity force...their moving technology is based on gravity manipulation and not the primitive action-reaction law..so be sure if u have been in their craft you wouldn't feel anything ...G-Force doesn't work inside an antigravity field..( basic Phisics)

Antigravity is hardly basic physics.

In Einstein's General Relativity theory (basic physics) antigravity is impossible, unless a body has negative mass, if I'm not mistaken.

There are some other models that account for antigravity, but they are derived from quantum gravity models, and again, that is hardly basic physics.

When the subject of antigravity comes along alot of people like to mention the work of Nikola Tesla.
But from what I understand Tesla's work on that subject speak of longitudinal scalar waves, and they break the Maxwell's equations (basic physics that describe the behavior of electric and mangetic fields).

So no, basic physics don't account for antigravity, at least as far as my limited knowledge of physics is aware



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Ok, i managed to reproduce 000000's fake picture. (edit: typo)

I took the congestion picture and turned it around about 5 degrees. Then i removed the congestion lights, except the last one in the upper right. Then i did cut it a bit. And then i saved it with a program that doesn't leave trails.

I only stopped at that point, because it was obvious that it was a fake.

The last thing the hoaxer did was to change the colors a bit and then made it look a bit blurry (like a bad cellphonepic)

sorry this one - - the last one is a hoax.

(beware: not the original, just reproduced the fake...trying to proof my point)
img214.imageshack.us...




[edit on 29-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by AgainstSecrecy
Ok, i managed to reproduce 000000's fake picture.


Good job, AS.
While we all appreciate the work you guys are doing on the pics, I have to play defense attorney a little and say:

Isn't it possible to create a hoaxed picture that emulates what *could* possibly be a real picture? I mean, just because you were able to make a fake reproduction of that picture, couldn't the original picture still be genuine? I'm just trying to make the point of - just because a picture CAN be hoaxed professionally doesn't mean automatically that the original was, right?

Just a thought.

Hydden



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:30 AM
link   
NEW INFORMATION:

There were lots of flights kept in a holding pattern as this thing made it's appearance. There WAS definitely an unusual military presence during the sighting. Anyway I know I mentioned it before but according to friends it is true. Also all this photo analysis will yield nothing conclusive. They can manipulate everything to make you think anything. They can post the genuine ufo photo and doctor it to make you think it was doctored. I said this before. They can post things that predate any sighting and make you think all kinds of things. I know what im talking about. You must keep your eye on the big picture and resist being sent into circles over details which you have no control over. The big picture here include witness testimony, airport operation data, photos and hopefully video. The PTB will always try to get believers to argue amongst themselves, they do this by creating doubt with disinformation I know you all know this. We need to put these pieces together and find out about the ATC in the tower, the military and which branch may have been present, and all those passengers that may have landed as this thing made it's appearance. This story was more than likely purposefully delayed. I mean to report on it almost 2 months later? The reason is that witness testimony and time do not got together. Can you imagine the response if the media was on this the very next day? Think of the witnesses that would of come forward.

I do have a very big feeling in my gut that something is about to happen. I don't know that it's ufo related but I know what I feel. Change is coming.

A.S



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hydden
Good job, AS.
While we all appreciate the work you guys are doing on the pics, I have to play defense attorney a little and say:

Isn't it possible to create a hoaxed picture that emulates what *could* possibly be a real picture? I mean, just because you were able to make a fake reproduction of that picture, couldn't the original picture still be genuine? I'm just trying to make the point of - just because a picture CAN be hoaxed professionally doesn't mean automatically that the original was, right?

Just a thought.

Hydden

It could be possible, but i really doubt it. When comparing the pictures i can clearly see now what the hoaxer did.The similarities are to big. This one is the same as the 000000 picture. Sadfully just another "google imagesearch" hoax.


In earlier posts i was 100% convinced that the 000000 picture is the real deal. But now that i managed to reproduce it with little effort, i doubt that this one is real. And i'm sorry that i was aggresively defending the picture as the real deal (some pages earlier).

Someone is playing with us. Sort of disinfo tactic. ... i guess


ORB

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:36 AM
link   
What I see in 00000's pic.......



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 08:46 AM
link   
I changed a few things...but left the colors (dunno if i can get the exact same colors the hoaxer used...but i guess it's possible)
(beware: not the original, just reproduced the fake...trying to proof my point)
img258.imageshack.us...


[edit on 29-1-2007 by AgainstSecrecy]



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 73  74  75    77  78  79 >>

log in

join