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: 86
99
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by disownedsky
Is that really all that strange?


being the reporter who broke the story of the first proven alien visitation or sitting on the beach sipping daquiris with the wife and whining kids?

in all seriousness, this guy was discussing the INTERNATIONAL interest in his article. He was being interviewed about the story. One would think that he found something believable in the story or he would not have written the article. Given that, and given his sudden flurry of interviews he said he was wanted for, it seems really all that strange and more that he would take off for a vacation.

am I saying he's in forced hiding? no
am I saying he is not interested in a dead story? no
am I saying he is being hushed by his bosses, our gov't or some other group? no

I am merely saying that whatever the explanation for his not being available, the concept of a vacation at this potentially monumental moment in his career and the monumental impact this might have on our planet seems somewhat ludicrous.




posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I am a bit surprised that no other pictures have surfaced. I would think a "my brother's girlfriend's cousin's dad was there a got a picture" would have happened by now and someone would have got the image and put it on the internet.

Has anyone heard of a "i took a picture but the UFO didn't appear in it"? Haven't seen that yet either on the internet or news.

Gotta be pictures somewhere....



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur
I am merely saying that whatever the explanation for his not being available, the concept of a vacation at this potentially monumental moment in his career and the monumental impact this might have on our planet seems somewhat ludicrous.



Could it be he's heard many of these 'stories', and just considers this current account, another among many?

Or, although he seemed interested, during the 'off camera' studio conversation, he may fear future ridicule, in his career,if this turns out to be nothing.(hmmm, I think, after rereading, this may be a different reporter)

Either, way, we should know soon, no?

[edit on 31-1-2007 by Jbird]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Crakeur

Originally posted by disownedsky
Is that really all that strange?


I am merely saying that whatever the explanation for his not being available, the concept of a vacation at this potentially monumental moment in his career and the monumental impact this might have on our planet seems somewhat ludicrous.


Monumental moment in his career?? He is a writer for the Chicago Tribune. Which i am sure in writing terms is a prett big deal. Its not like he is writing for some small town paper and broke the story of the century.

He writes about transportation. Yes this story carried a great deal of interest BRIEFLY. But where else could he take it? The airlines say it was a non event. The FAA says it was a non event. and interest in the Mainsteam media was limited to a few brief interviews! There is no REAL eveidence (ie:verifiable pictures)nor are there any REAL witnesses willing to come forward publicly and talk about it......so it boils down to an interesting tidbit in the anals of history. End of story

[edit on 31-1-2007 by TheShadow]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by roadgravel
I am a bit surprised that no other pictures have surfaced.

Gotta be pictures somewhere....


You and me BOTH, I have two promising leads from the "Contact ATS" email but no pictures as of yet. Hopefully before the day is done we will. No telling.

I agree, there has to be more pictures out there. Even when one takes into account that people may not have noticed the object (on a cell phone far enough away it could only be a pixel or two) in a cell phone picture, we know there were people out there with digital cameras shooting the image.

I think it's only a matter of time, patience and perseverance. Well I hope it is anyway.


Springer...



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 03:38 PM
link   
Yeah, I'm with The Shadow on this one.

This guy writes about Travel in the Chicago Tribune. If his exposure were to get any bigger than this story, don't you think he'd want to run with it as hard as he could....if only for his career's sake?

I mean, if he played his cards right, he could be hosting his own local...and maybe eventually national...paranormal talk show - at the extreme end, of course.

But, no... he's on vacation? Postpone that *****!


Hydden:



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShadow
...nor are there any REAL witnesses willing to come forward publicly and talk about it......so it boils down to an interesting tidbit in the anals of history. End of story

[edit on 31-1-2007 by TheShadow]



The Shadow..

Would you care to ellaborate on that statement. you seem to be stating that Eyewitness is not a REAL witness. Would love to see your reasoning..

and yes this is my first post but have been reading ATS since the Last Big Disclosure earlier last year..ie please don't call me a sock puppet



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   
I wonder what the Fair Skeptics' analysis would be regarding this case. It seems to be perfectly suited for them.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by CthulhuRising

Originally posted by TheShadow
...nor are there any REAL witnesses willing to come forward publicly and talk about it......so it boils down to an interesting tidbit in the anals of history. End of story

[edit on 31-1-2007 by TheShadow]



The Shadow..

Would you care to ellaborate on that statement. you seem to be stating that Eyewitness is not a REAL witness. Would love to see your reasoning..

and yes this is my first post but have been reading ATS since the Last Big Disclosure earlier last year..ie please don't call me a sock puppet


Oh no not claiming that at all. She seems very credible, but has not actually come out from being an anon witness.....as i stated she seems very legit and is obviously from the area.....but i always err on the side of caution when it comes to anonymous witnesses.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShadow

Originally posted by Crakeur

I am merely saying that whatever the explanation for his not being available, the concept of a vacation at this potentially monumental moment in his career and the monumental impact this might have on our planet seems somewhat ludicrous.


Monumental moment in his career?? He is a writer for the Chicago Tribune. Which i am sure in writing terms is a prett big deal. Its not like he is writing for some small town paper and broke the story of the century.

He writes about transportation. Yes this story carried a great deal of interest BRIEFLY. But where else could he take it? The airlines say it was a non event. The FAA says it was a non event. and interest in the Mainsteam media was limited to a few brief interviews! There is no REAL eveidence (ie:verifiable pictures)nor are there any REAL witnesses willing to come forward publicly and talk about it......so it boils down to an interesting tidbit in the anals of history. End of story

[edit on 31-1-2007 by TheShadow]

Uh, I think you meant "annals."

I agree, and given the ever present giggle factor and the official dismissal, I very much doubt he considers it a career making story, especially since he's not a young, ambitious Carl Bernstein wannabe anyway.

Also, who says he's really off the air? He may well have left his cell phone number with people he needs to be in touch with. He might even have his laptop with him. He could even be lurking on this forum.

Although Eyewitness strikes me personally as sincere and authentic, unless she provides some verifiable information (not necessarily publically) it's all just stories.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShadow
......so it boils down to an interesting tidbit in the anals of history. End of story

[edit on 31-1-2007 by TheShadow]

Bold is my emphasis.


Sorry did you mean annals of history.


(beat me to it disowned sky)rofl



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   
In regards to the last 2 photos I posted, I'm sorry, but I did not see these particular 2 in this thread. I assumed they were 2 "new ones" for you to debunk ! They weren't the preveious 2 that had been layered over an airport pic, or so i thought anyways.

I have not had time to read through this entire thread, which i would like to do obviously. Having said that, if I just assume they've been shown already, and not posted them, you may have missed something. I did look through several pages, beforei I posted & couldn't find them.

I don't appreciate being told to "put some effort into it" ! I am contributing, and , they weren't my pictures, and i am no photo analysis expert, so don't get mad at me about them. I beleive i posted way back in this thread alerting you to the first witneess who spoke out Nov 7th, as well as some other posts I've made. I am hesitant now to post what i find, if i am going to be called down on it.

This should be a team effort, where we can decide collectively what is bunk & what may be real.
Thanks.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:42 PM
link   
LOL I meant annals not ANALs...sorry was a dyslexic (spelled wrong but you know what i mean) moment



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheShadow
LOL I meant annals not ANALs...sorry was a dyslexic (spelled wrong but you know what i mean) moment


Thats cool gave me a good laugh.... you maybe onto something though, anals, ET's, probing!



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by violet
In regards to the last 2 photos I posted, I'm sorry, but I did not see these particular 2 in this thread. I assumed they were 2 "new ones" for you to debunk ! They weren't the preveious 2 that had been layered over an airport pic, or so i thought anyways.

I have not had time to read through this entire thread, which i would like to do obviously. Having said that, if I just assume they've been shown already, and not posted them, you may have missed something. I did look through several pages, beforei I posted & couldn't find them.

I don't appreciate being told to "put some effort into it" ! I am contributing, and , they weren't my pictures, and i am no photo analysis expert, so don't get mad at me about them. I beleive i posted way back in this thread alerting you to the first witneess who spoke out Nov 7th, as well as some other posts I've made. I am hesitant now to post what i find, if i am going to be called down on it.

This should be a team effort, where we can decide collectively what is bunk & what may be real.
Thanks.



I'm with you on this, that's why I already told him off. I missed the debunking of these pics also, and NOTHING has been mentioned regarding them since they were posted on the front page of UFO Casebook.

Thanks for trying, and don't stop because of a few unfriendlys on this site.

Debunked here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 31-1-2007 by Miah]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by violet

I have not had time to read through this entire thread, which i would like to do obviously.


You dont need to read the whole thread to find that these were debunked, you only needed to have read the last six pages, not too much too ask, third post from bottom of page 80.



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by violet

I have not had time to read through this entire thread, which i would like to do obviously.


You dont need to read the whole thread to find that these were debunked, you only needed to have read the last six pages, not too much too ask, third post from bottom of page 80.


Nope, they were not debunked there either, keep 'em coming. Maybe I will actually see where they were debunked...

Debunked on page 71: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Never mentioned AFTER it was on UFO Casebook yesterday. Someone should have informed them I guess


[edit on 31-1-2007 by Miah]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Lots of disinfo sockpuppets here.

Could be the hoaxer with more than one account (proxy...?)

Mods, please check who's promoting the hoaxes that already have been debunked on this board over and over again.

Thanks in advance



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Miah those are the same pics, maybe not the same UFO but they are the same background photo cut into two.

I posted this in another thread already(that you looked at 5 minutes ago and repied to) but here goes anyways.

The photos in question were posted on THIS Page of the O'hare UFO thread, third post from the bottom.

They were than debunked in THIS thread by someone who found both the the pictures were cut from the same photo and the UFO "spliced" in. Original photos are posted too. It may not be the same UFO but it is the same background shot, that means fake, period.


[edit on 31-1-2007 by Tiloke]



posted on Jan, 31 2007 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Miah

Originally posted by mojo4sale

Originally posted by violet

I have not had time to read through this entire thread, which i would like to do obviously.


You dont need to read the whole thread to find that these were debunked, you only needed to have read the last six pages, not too much too ask, third post from bottom of page 80.


Nope, they were not debunked there either, keep 'em coming. Maybe I will actually see where they were debunked...


No the poster after that said they'd been debunked and they had by against secrecy on page 71, you dont have to read the whole thread to find it just a dozen pages, not too hard is it. Cmon.

On with the show.



new topics

top topics



 
99
<< 83  84  85    87  88  89 >>

log in

join