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: 80
99
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyewitness
When I fly, I've always packed my nondigital SLR and film in my checked luggage, to avoid clouding or other damage from the X-ray machines at security. Would owners of digital cameras likely do the same, or would there be no risk to memory cards and onboard-memory components?


My understanding from research and friends who travel, is that there is not a problem with the xray scanners, etc. If I had a UFO photo on memory, I think I would hand carry it and have it hand inspected in camera if possible (plead concern of losing special family event photos).




posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Bhadhidar, you're very right... I really didn't think my testimony was worth all that much until I realized that photos really weren't forthcoming, and that many witnesses are either airport/airline employees and may have been silenced, or are people who live overseas and may not even know of the attention this event has gotten.

As for ambassador, I think I'm mellow enough to handle pretty much anything including verrrry alien creatures... but do even ambassadors have to do the anal probe thing?? ;-)



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Absolutely agreed, roadgravel... I was thinking more about if people would be inclined to have their digital cameras handy, in their purses or briefcases or carryon bags, so the cams would be available to use if the people carrying them spotted the object, rather than tucked away in their checked baggage. As for me, now that I've got my new O'Hare-inspired digital camera, I will never, ever fly without it farther away than my pocket.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 09:51 PM
link   
I am afraid to pack a camera, if valuable, in checked luggage. I always carry mine, due to lost baggage and theft concerns. I would think most people carry a digital camera due to it's easy of use and how it has changed pictures. In today's world the picture availablity from an current event should be very large.
Let's hope it's true for this one.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyewitness
Bhadhidar, you're very right... I really didn't think my testimony was worth all that much until I realized that photos really weren't forthcoming, and that many witnesses are either airport/airline employees and may have been silenced, or are people who live overseas and may not even know of the attention this event has gotten.

As for ambassador, I think I'm mellow enough to handle pretty much anything including verrrry alien creatures... but do even ambassadors have to do the anal probe thing?? ;-)



Considering the sheer number of airline and airport employees that would most likely have to "intimidated" into silence, and given the likelyhood of a significant number of "malcontents" and "hard-cases" in any group of normal employees (and the numbers tend to rise in inverse proportion to the given pay-scale); I would suspect that, short of threatening death or life imprisonment, there would be significant number willing to "spill the beans" if given the opportunity...And the Means!

And yet, the continuing witness silence is one of the "eeriest" aspects of this incident!


Ambassadors can refuse the probe, if they choose.

'Butt' it's a traditional part of the "Alien" experience, especially in rural areas!



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
Bhadhidar, I'm hoping that the pilots, at least, are continuing to press this with the airline and airport authorities... but yes, it concerns me, too... I mean, granted, the job market isn't sweet right now, and a threat to one's position/income carries some weight, especially if coming forward would also result in being blackballed among airlines/airports. Still, even some strong anonymous-to-the-public-but-vetted-in-private accounts would be lovely.

As for the anal probe... okay, I'll take one for the team, but NO cameras.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:01 PM
link   
Bhadhidar, I've been informed, though, that there were more than just a handful of O'Hare/airline employees who saw and reported the object... that others came forward after the first official poopooing.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Does anyone know how much coverage this is getting in Europe?



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel

Originally posted by Eyewitness
When I fly, I've always packed my nondigital SLR and film in my checked luggage, to avoid clouding or other damage from the X-ray machines at security. Would owners of digital cameras likely do the same, or would there be no risk to memory cards and onboard-memory components?


My understanding from research and friends who travel, is that there is not a problem with the xray scanners, etc. If I had a UFO photo on memory, I think I would hand carry it and have it hand inspected in camera if possible (plead concern of losing special family event photos).


hmm, i'm a hobbyist with photography, and i've always brought my camera with me on carry on. i'll even get a window seat and take some cool shots while we're up in the air. i've been on plenty of flights and my camera is still fully functional.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eyewitness
Absolutely agreed, roadgravel... I was thinking more about if people would be inclined to have their digital cameras handy, in their purses or briefcases or carryon bags, so the cams would be available to use if the people carrying them spotted the object, rather than tucked away in their checked baggage. As for me, now that I've got my new O'Hare-inspired digital camera, I will never, ever fly without it farther away than my pocket.


you know what, as i stated before i usually have a my camera with me during flight. but there was this time i saw something i didn't understand outside my window, and my first thought was not to photograph it (my camera is always at my feet in the bag, unless i'm using it). instead i just stared at the anomaly and tried to figure out a logical sense of what i was seeing. to clarify, what i saw was a longggggg hollowed out cloud-like formation far off to the right of the plane that must have went on for thousands of miles. i was sitting in front of the engines so it couldn't have been that. i just assumed in was viewing the trails of a plane that was ahead of us.

but yeah, instead of photographing it, i simply stared and tried to understand. i was tempted to ask someone if they knew what it was, but i didn't even bother. so my point is, even with a camera handy it's not always your first instinct to take a photo.



posted on Jan, 29 2007 @ 11:59 PM
link   
Coast to Coast AM with George Noory www.coasttocoastam.com has invited me back on again tonight to discuss the Honolulu "incident" and the update of this O'Hare incident with the revelations of "eyewitness".

I fully expect to get "plea" out to ANYONE who was there, at O'Hare Airport on 07 November, 2006 to come forward as we WILL protect your identity if needed and or wanted. It REALLY is about getting the DATA folks!

The ULTIMATE would be someone who got a photograph of this thing that we could compare to the image we have now.

Those who are WASTING valuable attention on "poo-pooing" the existing image off, REALLY should be trying to get the PLEA for MORE DATA OUT to those who may have that data IMHO...

"Turf wars" are petty, MEANINGLESS and counter-productive, and we IGNORE THEM categorically here at AboveTopSecret. Matter of fact they SERVE the concept of a "cabal" that seeks to squelch data like this from ever reaching the PEOPLE! So who will we serve? The People or the wannabes?



Just a thought.



[edit on 1-30-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Springer
Those who are WASTING valuable attention "poo-pooing" the existing image off REALLY should be trying to get the PLEA for MORE DATA OUT to those who may have that data.

"Turf wars" are petty, MEANINGLESS and counter-productive, and we IGNORE THEM categorically here at AboveTopSecret. Matter of fact they SERVE the concept of a "cabal" that seeks to squelch data like this from ever reaching the PEOPLE! So who will we serve? The People or the wannabes?



i'm with you 100% on more data.

but i really wouldn't call debating the only possible legitimate picture a waste of time. that picture on it's own without this backstory would probably be laughed off. without someone claiming it's a photo of a UFO, it probably wouldn't gauge a second glance. add to the fact that it came from an anonymous source, and we have found a possible source picture, it makes a debate seem 100% necessary in my opinion.

the single photo by itself, real or hoaxed, doesn't do the incident justice one way or the other.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 12:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by bizone

i'm with you 100% on more data.

but i really wouldn't call debating the only possible legitimate picture a waste of time. that picture on it's own without this backstory would probably be laughed off. without someone claiming it's a photo of a UFO, it probably wouldn't gauge a second glance. add to the fact that it came from an anonymous source, and we have found a possible source picture, it makes a debate seem 100% necessary in my opinion.

the single photo by itself, real or hoaxed, doesn't do the incident justice one way or the other.


NOT what I meant at all and it's MY FAULT for not being clear.


I absolutely support the DEBATE of ALL "evidence" 100%!

Let me be VERY CLEAR, it's the "knee - jerk Poo Pooing that I don't support. ESPECIALLY by those who SHOULD be using their "position" to help spread the word that we are DESPERATLEY SEEKING DATA!


That's what I meant. I think it BEHOOVES ALL ATS Members (and similar hyper-intelligent folk) to debate this stuff with POLITE, Critical Thought.


Springer...

[edit on 1-30-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I must have missed Springers appearance on C2C tonight. . can anyone give bullet points as to what was said?



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by amongus
I must have missed Springers appearance on C2C tonight. . can anyone give bullet points as to what was said?



I covered the fact that "eyewitness" has stated that there were MANY others taking pictures at O'Hare and that we (AboveTopSecret.com) will GLADLY protect anyone's identity if they will forward their images HERE.


Springer...

[edit on 1-30-2007 by Springer]

[edit on 1-30-2007 by Springer]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 01:52 AM
link   
Thats great! I think his producer is more into this event than George actually is. If he thinks it was a hot air balloon why would he keep having you on? Either way its great to have the platform, coupled with the craigslist ad. I hope you (we) get some positive results out all this exposure.

Thanks God eyewitness decided to come forward. . .

Nice work again Springer. .

Also, I know its off topic but:
The evening news here in Seattle ran the Hawaii UFO story tonight as well, without smart alec comments or references to star trek/little green men. It was refreshing, and think to have two events covered by the media in a short period of time is promising. Although the Hawaii event sure does look like jet vapor.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eyewitness
JTF2-CANADA, lol, I know, I do listen once in a great while... but alas, I missed the two crazies.


Here is a pretty funny clip from an old C2C when stan friedman was on...
www.youtube.com...



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 06:57 AM
link   
2 new O'hare pics surface.

www.ufocasebook.com...


Not sure how to post the images straight up.....yet

[edit on 30-1-2007 by Klaxmexalix]



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   
I think those two were already debunked.

Mods, it might be time for a sticky of some sort with all the images in question on them to help clear up posts like this one.



posted on Jan, 30 2007 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bhadhidar
Does any one know, or know some one who would know, what commercial airport (ANY large comercial aiport would do, but ORD-specifically would be Ideal) policy and procedures are regarding unauthorized intrusions of the airport's restricted airspace...


In the airspace classification system, ORD is categorized as a Class-B area. FAA regulations state that a pilot cannot enter a Class-B airspace unless they have a properly operating transponder (produces the squawk code), are in radio contact with ATC approach control for the airspace and have been given specific clearance to enter the airspace.

An aircraft that causes an intrusion into a Class-B space is considered a serious situation (because of the air traffic density in Class-B spaces --- very busy). If ATC cannot raise the aircraft by radio they will request that the aircraft be intercepted. Who does the intercepting is determined by the FAA and the airport depending upon who is available in the area.



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 77  78  79    81  82  83 >>

log in

join